Tag Archives: Christianity

Real Jesus Vs. Republican Jesus?

Posted on January 1, 2012 | 4 Comments


The comic above–titled “real Jesus vs. Republican Jesus”–was posted on Facebook recently by one of my friends. In addition to criticizing Christian Republicans (I take it that the “Jeezus” on the right is suposed to be symbolizing that group.  I don’t know who else it would be aiming at.  Plus, that’s the title my friend gave it, so seems like he got the message, at least.) for being out of touch with what the Bible says on certain issues, it advances certain ideas about religion, politics, and the interaction between the two.  Is the challenge it offers and the ideas it puts forth sound?

You’ve probably guessed that I wasn’t amused.  I get that in the comic genre, we give writers some leeway when it comes to caricaturing and the like.  However, this comic takes it to extremes.  Going through it all would take all night, but let me catalogue some of the reasons why I wasn’t amused by addressing the overall way the comic author advances his ideas, and by examining a few of the ideas themselves:

For starters, notice the way in which it argues that certain ideas are “Christian:” by simply quoting a Bible verse…emphasis on verse.  This is a tell-tale sign that the author started with a pre-conceived notion of who he thinks Jesus was/is, and he cherry-picked some verses to fit that pre-conceived notion.

With this way of reasoning, you can make any piece of communication say anything you want.  That is not a mark against whatever text you are using; it’s a mark against you.  Were I to use the same methods of this author, I could make Barak Obama sound like Sarah Palin.

With these sorts of methods, its quite easy to make Jesus sound like he eschewed any and all moral judgment (except the judgment of left wing secularists…that’s legit), thought sexual activity outside of man/woman marriage (including homosexual behavior) is completely fine, held single payer health care to be a moral obligation of any democratic society, thought all religions are equally valid, held any and all war to be automatically immoral on its face, that increasing the size and scope of the state is always the way to go when attempting to usher in utopia (and: utopia was what he was shooting for anyway), and similarly, that communism is the rational form of government to bring about human flourishing.

Lest anyone think I’m singling out left-wing views, the same goes for pet projects of some on the other side too: incredibly easy to make Jesus say that all he wants is “your best life now” and that his number one agenda was/is to make you materially prosperous.  Yeah, it bugs me when its done in Christian circles too.  Point is: I’ve heard it all when it comes to Jesus.  That’s not a fault of Jesus or the Bible, it’s the fault of those who forget that meaning in a text flows from the whole to the parts, and the fault of those who look at Jesus as if looking in a mirror.

So no, just by quoting some verse somewhere and insinuating a conclusion, the author’s work is not done.  I am not impressed.

A simple case of the tail wagging the dog here.  I’ve seen time and time again where those on the left and/or secularists do this in regards to Jesus and their pet views, though its also quite common in Christian circles too.  Usually when this happens, most of what follows is junk.

Where else in do we reason like this?  Answer: nowhere.  There are certain rules of communication that we all take for granted when trying to infer what a piece of text–written or otherwise–means.  Context, genre, et al are all important, and we all automatically utilize those rules when it comes to communication, however, for some reason, those rules fly out the window when otherwise intelligent people address the Bible.

I simply remind PI readers that the Bible is no different than other communication, and you do not get a pass from using the rules of inference when determining its meaning.   It is not made of silly putty.

The point here isn’t that the author is wrong for simply supposing to know what Jesus said/thought, etc.  I do that in my own arguments so it would be hypocritical for me to take him to task for that.  Rather, I object to the method used–starting with a Jesus-of-his-own-understanding, and playing fast and loose with the Bible to justify that Jesus and argue against some folks he doesn’t like.

Of course, this observation alone doesn’t mean the author is wrong.  He could have gotten it right despite his sloppy methods.  You know what they say about broken clocks and blind squirrels.  But: its a red flag, and just by glancing at the comic, I’m on alert.

Armed with that as the background, let’s take a look in detail at one of the rows.

“If any one of you is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”  This is a quote from the famous passage in John where Jesus comes to the defense of a woman caught in adultery.  The Pharisees want to stone her, and use her to try to catch Jesus in His words.  Jesus stops their quest by noting they are all standing in hypocritical judgment of her.

The author of the comic contrasts the supposed non-judgmentalism of Jesus with the intolerant attitude of Christian Republicans, who supposedly “hate fags.”  What idea is the author advancing?

It is this: those that are truly loyal to Jesus would not judge, ie, would not pronounce anything–at least in the area of sexuality–as morally wrong. Why? Because everyone–including those loyal to Jesus–are fallen and sin themselves, and by this they relinquish their footing on which to stand and make moral judgments.

Never mind that in the passage, Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery to “leave (her) life of sin,” and never mind that plenty of times elsewhere in the Bible He makes plenty of moral judgments as to sexuality (and other areas) and commands His followers to do the same.  Therefore, using this one verse to suggest Jesus recommended an attitude of non-judgmentalism (defined as, “you should not say anything in X area is wrong”) towards sex or any other area is quite off.

Jesus actually does say plenty about hypocritical judgment, and judgment that is done with an intent of hatred/lack of compassion towards human persons.  He had strong words about that kind of judgment, but that is a far cry from the suggestion implicitly made in this comic.

Let me put it this way: if I were to slam homosexuals on Facebook with my pet Bible verses, but then I left my computer and went cruising, and I found nothing wrong with my crusing, that would be hypocritical and the kind of contradiction Jesus condemmed.  Likewise if I were to speak against homosexuality as a way of showing my own superiority, without regard to the well-being of those who identify as gay and/or live a homosexual lifestyle. That, too would be condemned by Jesus.

Well, there’s plenty of that to go around in Christian Republican circles, right (think: Ted Haggard)?  Sure, but its there aplenty on the left too, so I don’t know where this would get you.  Seems to be a critique against human nature, sure, but cannot be used to argue against a political view.

The author’s got one thing right: at least when it comes to me, I’m fallen.  Actually, he probably doesn’t know the half of it: I’m much worse than he probably thinks.  So any moral judgments I make are made in the context of my own falenness, not because I want to parade any supposed moral superiority around.  I am simply convinced by the arguments that the views I embrace are true and thus conducive to human flourishing.

Though it is possible I’m mistaken, I argue based on principle and conviction, not any supposed hatred, and there are plenty of Christian Republicans out there who are in the same boat.

Are there those who claim to be Christian who “hate fags”?  Yes.  Are there even Christians who “hate fags,” or who at least have an improper attitude towards gays and lesbians?  Yes.  Are there those who vote Republican who have that attitude?  Yes.  The author of the comic, therefore, should address those groups.  It is completely out of bounds to paint all Christian Republicans (keep in mind the target of the comic, as referred to in the title: the Jesus of the Republicans) with that brush.

This is a problem in addition to the problem earlier mentioned, namely, that the author is just making a plain silly suggestion: that no one should judge at all (at least in the named area) because we’re all fallen.  Such a position is unsustainable.  Afterall, the author himself is fallen, yet has no problem making moral judgments (namely, that guys like me are wrong).  I guess when I, as a Christian Republican, make judgments, I’m intolerant, but when he makes moral judgments, he’s just right?

What’s more, if an action harms people and is not conducive to human well-being, then to pretend its not isn’t tolerant: it’s cowardice.

Perhaps the author could respond by pointing to things that are more commonly held by Republicans.  “You guys are for traditional marriage,” he could say, “you think the only valid marriages are those between one man and one woman.  You are discriminating against gays!  Most of you Christians also think homosexual behavior is wrong.  See!?  You do hate fags!”

This brings up arguments for and against same-sex marriage, and the reasons why many Christians and conservatives hold homosexual behavior–as well as all other sexual behavior outside conjugal marriage (and some inside it!)–to be immoral.  Some reasons are biblically based, some not.  I can’t get into all that here, so I’ll simply refer you to links here and here for those interested.  I do want to venture a few comments that are directly relevant though.  First, notice that the response equates a moral point of view with hatred.  In other words, if you don’t accept homosexuality as a completely legitimate form of sexual expression, you are a homophobe and you hate gays.

Such an assertion is common enough, but think about it for a minute: just because I’m against a certain lifestyle, or hold something to be wrong, etc etc, does that mean I hate those who do it?  Obviously no.  I’m glad my parents didn’t take that attitude in raising me, for one.  They understood that growing up, certain things I did were wrong, harmful to me and others, or both, and they staunchly stood against such things because they loved me, not because they hated me.

Of course, the author could respond by saying that the difference here is that being glbtqia_ _ _ _ is part of “who one is,” ie, biological, or at least part of one’s makeup akin to skin color.  To question the behavior is then to question one’s very being.

This is very controversial and needs to be argued for, not asserted.  I don’t know how the author would proceed himself, but it’s typically asserted based upon feelings or some notion of “s/he just knew.”  If studies are mentioned, usually they are mentioned without regard to a full scope of the literature on the topic, and those who mention the studies take huge liberties with what the studies actually show and prove.

Sexuality is simply more complicated than that, and more to the point, one’s desires are not his destiny, and is does not mean ought.  One thing that separates us from the animals is that we have the capacity to take stock of our inclinations and say no to them, especially when such inclinations are harmful or wrong in themselves….just ask anyone (like me) who has been a part of a 12 step group at one time or another in their lives.  Doesn’t make it easy, but it’s doable.

So, bottom line: I simply don’t buy the assertion that moral objection to a certain lifestyle means we “hate.”  It’s especially laughable to suggest our moral objections mean we use the derogatory slurs referred to in the comic.

The rest of the comic is just as–if not more–confusing.   Are drug and alcohol consumption justified by mere reference to Matthew 15:11?  What can we conclude about Jesus’ attitude towards them from that verse?  I have no idea.

Here’s the worst of it: the author insinuates that Jesus never spoke of abortion.  Correct.  What should we conclude from that?  What follows?  Certainly not that Jesus had nothing agaisnt abortion, certainly not that Jesus thought it was no big deal, certainly not that its ok in and of itself.  That is a clear non-sequitur.  Need I point out that Jesus also never spoke of incest, sex slavery, or rape?

Next row: what should we conclude about war from the mentioned verse?  What was its context?  What was the situation in which Jesus said it, and what issue was He addressing?  What’s more, how does it fit in with other verses in the gospels and the Bible as a whole that pertains to war and the role of government?  Should we be out and out pacifists?

It doesn’t get any better.  What can we conclude from the verse offered about the separation of church and state?  That phrase is a very loaded one anyway with all sorts of ideology that doesn’t come from the consitution, and who knows what it means, but really: I see how the verse applies to giving taxes per se, and to other things that rightly belong to the government in the first place, but therein lies the rub.   Jesus doesn’t really say in that verse what, exactly, belongs to the government.  The verse has nothing to say about limited vs. big government, what amount of taxation will lead to economic flourishing, or about the role of religious motivations in forming public policy.  It doesn’t even say anything about the role of religious arguments (as opposed to motivations…the two are different) in the public square.

The last row is somewhat intelligible.  I see how it is a critique against some televangelists’ practice of using patron donations to make themselves rich.  What makes it confusing is putting it in the context of an attack against Christian Republicans–in other words, making a political point.  Maybe he intends it as an attack against many Republicans’ friendliness towards capitalism, or the notion that we’re fans of the free market, or even as an attack against policies of de-regulation in the free market.  I have no idea.  If so, it’s a strange juxtaposition, and the verse used falls prey to the same critique all the others do.

In sum, 1) if the author wants to attack the attitude of certain groups or individuals who call themselves Christian Republicans, fine, but he should address those particular groups or individuals, not the whole lot of us.  2) If the author wants to attack certain public policies or views held by Christian Republicans, fine, but use actual arguments, not half-hearted eisegesis.  3) If the author wants to argue that the views held by many Christian Republicans are out of step with what Jesus thought and/or what the Bible teaches, fine, but do so with passages that actually pertain to the issues and with arguments that make sense, rather than utilizing random verses and coupling them with insinuations that only confuse rather than clarify.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Taking Religion Seriously

Posted on October 3, 2011 | 1 Comment

Do you ever get the sense that talking religion is something that’s not done in polite company?  It is easy to talk about religion at a distance, perhaps as a sociologist would, but talking about religious convictions–especially one’s own–is kinda a faux paux.  We don’t take religion seriously around here, so it is uncouth to bring it to the public square as if it was a serious matter.  Keep it where all hobbies belong–in your own closet.

At least that’s the feeling I get. It often turns out differently when I actually do have conversations about religion–most people I’ve talked with are quite willing and don’t find it offensive–its just a subjective sense I get and, judging by how other people, especially Christians, talk, I sense I’m not alone in feeling this…sense.

Sorry for all the vague speak so far.  All I’m suggesting is that many people feel somewhat uneasy when it comes to discussing religious claims on one’s life.  Why?

Well, there’s that whole “claims on one’s life” bit.  People don’t want to have their autonomy breached, and they recognize that the claims of many a religion do just that.

That’s true enough, and deserves to be confronted, but the reason I want to challenge today is that most believe there’s really nothing to say about religious convictions besides, “well, good for you.”  That is, we’ve gotten the notion in this culture that once someone has finished talking about their convictions, they can’t be evaluated.  All we have to do is nod, mumble something about it not being “my cup of tea,” and move on.  That’s all that can be said about a subjective choice from the smorgasboard, and that’s how we see religion–as an endless buffet of equally good, subjective, choices.

I want to challenge that.

Consider this: religions make claims that can be verified or falsified.

Are all religious convictions like that?  No.  Do all adherents of religion think of their beliefs like that?  Again, no.  Talk to many who sit in the pews on Sunday, and they’ll describe Christianity as the smorgasboard above, or at least they’ll describe it as something that cannot be evaluated by logic and reason.  More of a feeling than anything else.

Notice how many times people categorically assert, without hesitation, without thinking about it, that it is all about “faith,” and you can’t “prove” it?  Ask them what they mean by “faith” and “proof,” and they really struggle to put something sensible together….well, there you go.

However, the core claims of many religions can be evaluated by logic and reason, and science also has something to say about them.  This is why they should be taken seriously.

Take, for instance, the lynchpin of Christianity: the resurrection.  The Bible claims that at a time in our actual history in this world, a real man named Jesus a) claimed to be God, b) predicted His death, c) predicted that He would defeat death by rising from the grave three days after his execution, and d) He actually, truly pulled it off.

That is, the Bible claims that the empty tomb is a figment of history, not imagination.

This puts it in the realm of verifiability.  Not in the same sense as a claim from a biologist can be verified, granted, but verified nonetheless in that evidence and reason has something to say in evaluation.  It is possible to offer reasons for its truth, and vice versa.  This means that it, along with any other claims logically connected to it, are real players in the game that deserve to be taken seriously in the public square.

Other claims from other religions and worldviews are no different.  Mormonism and most forms of Hinduism, for example, are committed to an eternally existing universe (in the sense that matter is eternal for Mormons), and thus you betcha–science has plenty to say about that.

Islam is committed to the notion that Jesus of Nazareth did not die on the cross, and history has plenty to say to that.

I could go on. The point: much can be offered in terms of evaluating religions for truth and falsehood, since they make claims about reality.  Arguments from philosophy can be offered pro and con, complete with premises defended from various other fields of knowledge–like science and history–that deductively lead to rational conclusions.  We don’t have to stop at “well, I’m glad you are happy (pat on the head).”  In fact, we shouldn’t even go there.  Treating religion like that is a radical category mistake.  Since religions make claims on reality, they should be treated like anything else in the public square.

They are not second-class belief systems.  They get a spot at the table.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Why Evangelicals Should Keep Evangelizing

Posted on July 27, 2011 | 3 Comments

…In short, because Jesus and His disciples did, and I have every reason to think both Him and the Bible writers expect us to as well.

I can see why folks like Carl Medearis would write books on the Art of Not-Evangelizing, and why guys like him encourage Christians to stop.   It’s hard to keep doing what’s unpopular, and evangelizing is definitely not popular in our postmodern age that tends to equate exclusivity (and evangelism is, of necessity, exclusive) with all that’s wrong with the world.

It’s almost like Medearis and friends are downright evangelical about not-evangelizing….at least when it comes to Christians.  Muslims, secularists, and new agers, go ahead.  Others may, Christians may not.

Which is weird, because Jesus, Paul and co. had no problem with it, and they had no problem encouraging disciples of Christ–that means us Christians…today–to do the same.

When Paul writes

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:  Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

and when Jesus said

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

I don’t know how you could miss it.  Yes, I know, Paul was writing to Timothy, a pastor, but I don’t think it follows that we’re exempt from that.  Hey, when Jesus said “teach them to obey everything I have commanded,” that means everything. 

In addition, why would we want to keep the Gospel from others?  Put aside, for the moment, the fact that telling others about the Gospel, with its message about the universality of sin and need to be saved, and its message that only in Jesus is the proper solution found, is incredibly unpopular in our ear-itching age.  Gospel means, even though exclusive,  good news.  Hey, if a cure for cancer was found, that’d be exclusive too, but we’d unequivocably call that good news.  Why would it be any different for the cure to spiritual cancer?

I get that Christians might need to communicate that message differently in the twenty first century.  No need to rely upon sandwich sign and bullhorn, and you don’t need to share the whole gospel in every conversation, but we must be willing, able, and ready….communicate it we must.

Christians, think for a moment.  What if–just go with me here–the things that Jesus said are actually true–not just “true for us,” but true in every sense of the word?  (That’s part of it, right?  If this stuff isn’t truly true, then why be a Christian?  Just hang it up.)

We hold that humans are many times over criminals in God’s court.  Every day we break His law.  What we’ve earned for our rap sheet is hell.  Not nice, but it’s justice.  God, in His mercy, offers us a pardon, but its on His terms, not ours, and His terms are forgiveness through Jesus, who was not just a great leader, but God incarnate.  Take it or leave it.

What if that is actually true?  Then we’d better tell it to people, if we really love them.  Just like if a loved one had a fatal disease and was using ice cream to cure it…if you had the cure in your backpack and refused to give it to him, just encouragaing him to be a better “ice cream eater,” you could not lay claim to love him/her.  If we stick to seminars about how Jesus was a great leader, we are being derelict of our duty.

Some of what Medearis says sounds great, but the problem is that upon inspection, his words do not bring clarity, but confusion.

Here’s a sampling:

Even the Apostle Paul insisted that it’s faith in Jesus that matters, not converting to a new religion or a new socio-religious identity.

What if evangelicals today, instead of focusing on “evangelizing” and “converting” people, were to begin to think of Jesus not as starting a new religion, but as the central figure of a movement that transcends religious distinctions and identities?

Jesus the uniter of humanity, not Jesus the divider. How might that change the way we look at others?

When I used to think of myself as a missionary, I was obsessed with converting Muslims (or anybody for that matter) to what I thought of as “Christianity.” I had a set of doctrinal litmus tests that the potential convert had to pass before I would consider them “in” or one of “us.”

Funny thing is, Jesus never said, “Go into the world and convert people to Christianity.” What he said was, “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Encouraging anyone and everyone to become an apprentice of Jesus, without manipulation, is a more open, dynamic and relational way of helping people who want to become more like Jesus — regardless of their religious identity.

A few thoughts.  First, yes, Jesus united people, but He united people around Him, God incarnate, the only solution to man’s problem.  He didn’t come to simply inaugurate a general, vague, content-less unity centered on human good will and interfaith dialogue.  He came to divide too: those who embraced His Father’s offer of forgiveness, and those who rejected it.  If you miss that, just ask the Pharisees; they were often at the receiving end of His division.

This does not mean that Christians circle the wagons and adopt an “us-vs-them” mentality.  It does not mean we make our love conditional or that those who disagree with us are dirty or unworthy.  I don’t know why anyone would think it does mean that.

Our invitation (aka, the “Gospel”) to embrace Jesus as Lord is to always remain open to all.  But this “rough side” of Jesus is one that needs to be reckoned with, not ignored.

Secondly, “doctrine” is another four letter word in our age, and Medearis treats it as such, but it need not be.  Doctrine is simply “belief.”  Everyone, including Medearis, has doctrines.  You cannot separate apprenticeship to Jesus from doctrine.

True, no need to obsess over infralapsarianism or make the Five Points of Calvinism a necessity for salvation…but you cannot divorce devotion to Jesus from beliefs about Jesus.  I can’t even do that with my wife.  If I tried, sooner or later I’d end up smooching the wrong woman, which wouldn’t go over well with her.  Doing the same with Jesus wouldn’t go over well with Him either.

Third, his comments reflect a false dichotomy.  Yeah, I know, “religion” is a dirty word these days, but it should not be.  A religion is simply a worldview or set of beliefs, often accompanied by certain rituals or disciplines, about ultimate questions such as “who are we?  How did we get here?  What is the problem with humanity and what is the solution?”  Did Jesus teach about answers to those questions?  Yep.  In that sense, did He start a religion?  Yes, centered around Himself.

Fourth, I don’t know what the big deal about “conversion” is.  Conversion is simply persuading someone to adopt certain beliefs, practices, etc.  Medearis’ beliefnet column is an effort in conversion…he wants me to drop by current beliefs/practices about Jesus, Christianity, and religion, and pick up his.  Why does he do what he wants me to stop doing?

Granted, some methods of persuading are better than others.  Jesus was not a fan of the sword, but He definitely was a fan of vocal proclamation about all He taught and represented.

Finally, though it sounds nice to think someone can be an apprentice of Jesus and still remain a member of another religion–say, Islam–that is a bunch of hooey.

While some beliefs in the Islam religion overlap with what Jesus taught, much of it conflicts.  For instance, the belief that Jesus is *only* a prophet, calling Him “God incarnate” is a grand sin, and He did not die on the cross.  All these are central to Islam, and any good Muslim believes them.  Any apprentice of Jesus who is worthy of the name will categorically reject them.

You just can’t get around these things.  Trying makes you an apprentice of someone other than Jesus…or perhaps it makes you an apprentice of a Jesus-made-in-your-own-image.  Neither will be ultimately helpful to you and your loved ones.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Relationship, not Religion?

Posted on June 7, 2011 | 2 Comments

“Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.”

If you’ve been around Christian circles for any length of time, you’ve heard that one, no doubt. I myself have said it…lots. That slogan was a main feature of the sermon on Sunday.

I have a tremendous respect for the pastor who said it, and he carries an authenticity, authority (in the sense of “speaking knowledgeably,” not the “power-authority” kind, which is usually perjorative), and conviction that few possess. As a pastor in India, he ministers to the weakest of the weak and the poorest of the poor. He provides for them both spiritually and physically, for the long haul. He unashamedly preaches Christ crucified and risen, the only solution to man’s universal sin problem. He gives hope, real hope–not faux-spiritual vague hopey hope–to tens of thousands of destitute people. He is tireless and rarely rests. His passion is matchless, something I am in awe of.

So when a guy like that says something, you listen.

I can understand why he would say “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion,” and I get what he’s trying to say. Think about the cultural context he comes from. The major religion in India is Hinduism, a hugely oppressive religion that deterministically marginalizes scores of people by labeling them “untouchable,” which is a caste supposedly cosmically assigned and not to be tampered with by do-gooders. It is the poster child of an oppressive system of rules. This guy was trying to distance Christianity from something like that, and for good reason…that’s not Christianity. Christianity is not a system of dead orthodoxy and ritual, performed mindlessly in the hope of impressing a finniky and distant god into letting you slide. At the heart of the Christian faith is not karma, but a person, One who is alive and well today and hence can be known as you and I can be known.

Ok…I’m on board with that message.

But (and you knew a “but” was coming, didn’t you?), I’m afraid that when that gets put into another cultural context–in this case, post-modern, individualistic, Oprah-ish pop -spirituality-drunk America–that the message gets lost in translation.

It really is unfortunate, for Christianity’s relational element is something that most other religions don’t grasp much. However, it is the case that most Americans–churched and unchurched alike–possess some awfully unbiblical thought patterns and categories. We’re pretty biblically illiterate, so that slogan, as sincerely as it is shouted from the rooftops, often gets twisted into something entirely alien to the Gospel.

Oftentimes, when an audience in America hears that phrase, even if the person saying it means it in a biblical way, the audience hears that Christianity is a low commitment, do-it-yourself, just-you-and-Jesus, design-it-yourself spirituality that’s unique to You and devoid of rules. The Christianity of the Bible is anything but those things.

First, there’s that whole “die to yourself and pick up your cross” thing. Then there’s submission to Authority–the Supreme Authority. God is holy, not a hang out buddy. There’s plenty of good old fashioned doctrine to go around, and yup, there are rules too. Now, those rules are not meant to be spiritual resume builders, as if you can get right with God simply by following them. We’re rebels against God, and thus can’t pay for our bad deeds with good deeds. But still, there are rules, and though they have a limited role and aren’t the main point, they have a role and they have a point.

Think of it this way: even every relationship has rules and ritual. Uh, take the rule, “don’t sleep with a woman that is not your wife.” If I break that rule, my relationship to my wife will be harmed. That’s a euphemism if I’ve ever heard one. Then why would we expect it to be any different with a relational God? He’s even said point blank, “if you love me, you’ll obey my teaching.” (John 14:23).

Same thing goes for ritual. My wife and I have a date night. We celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, and such. We have routines that help us nurture our relationship. These are all rituals, after a fashion. Again, they aren’t the point–they are a means to an end–but they have a point. This applies to God too. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Same goes with the label “religion.” I know it sounds pithy and edgy to say Christianity is not a religion and that God hates religion, but really pause to think about this. I just went to the online dictionary and looked it up. Here’s definition numero uno: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

Here’s definition numero dos: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.”

Pretty standard, as far as definitions of “religion” goes. So how can Christianity be defined apart from that? Yes, Christianity is so much more than that, but Christianity includes that. Am I sounding like a broken record yet?

No matter what kind of Christian you are, whether a stodgy fundamentalist or hipster liberal, you’ve got beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe and ultimate meaning. You’ve got rituals (and admit it, meeting at Starbucks once a week with a buddy to engage in faux spiritual banter might not be high church, but it’s ritual.), you’ve got people that agree with you and join you in practicing, and you’ve got a moral code. For anti-institutionalized religion folks, it comes through loud and clear in the way they bash the church about its failings, both real and imagined.

I therefore find the whole “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion” thing to be a huge false dichotomy. If well meaning folks want to communicate that Christianity is not a rote set of guidelines that’s superficially followed, they should just say that.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

A Brief Review of Hawking and Mlodinow’s *The Grand Design*

Posted on May 1, 2011 | 18 Comments

Recently, after I heard a non-Christian colleague or two express interest in reading Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, I proposed a book discussion after work one day.  A few Christian colleagues liked the idea, and we were off.

For those who don’t know, in this book, Hawking and his co-author Mlodinow attempt to explain the origin of the universe in a completely naturalistic way, in other words, without reference to God or any other supernatural explanation.  The non-Christian colleagues who were interested in reading the book noted that very project as the reason why they wanted to read it.

What was curious to me was that once I invited (in a very non-chalant way, I add, so you can’t say my manner or tone put them off) these colleagues to the book discussion, they suddenly became very uninterested.  One of them completely blew me off.  Hmmm…odd.

At any rate, I recently finished reading the book in preparation for the book discussion.  Science really isn’t my forte’, and Hawking is a giant in the field.  I therefore know my limits and can’t really comment on the viability of the science content in the book.   I know very little of Quantum Mechanics, so when Hawking and Mlodinow are speaking about things such as the structure of an atom or the results of experiments with electrons, I’ll obviously defer to him.

Given my inexperience with the subject matter and their expertise, it would be a great act of hubris for me to debate H&M on those matters.

However, there’s a good bit of philosophy in the book.  In fact, the book turns out to be mostly philosophy, not science, which is weird, given the fact that the authors pronounce philosophy “dead” in the second paragraph.  Philosophy is my field, and there are plenty of philosophical mistakes and shoddy justifications to go around in the pages, so I can venture a few comments about that.

To put it most simply, H&M get themselves into very deep philosophical waters several times in the book, and they seem either totally unaware or totally apathetic toward that.  The reason why I say that is that time and time again, they make very controversial assertions on HUGE philosophical questions and topics, and almost every time, they venture very little if any justification for their views, and sometimes they totally miss the point.  These are questions on which very accomplished scholars have written volumes back and forth, and each time, H&M give only a slight attempt at backing up their assertions, and sometimes, there’s no attempt at all.  A few times, the justification that is offered is more strange than the assertion itself.

William Lane Craig has written in depth (again here) about most of these spots in the book, so I find no need to rehash them here, but still let me give an example or two.

**NOTE: to access the links above, use “pugnacious” as the ID and “Irishman” as the password.

Soon after they confidently pronounce philosophy dead, they launch into a few chapters about the realism vs. anti-realism controversy in the philosophy of science.  This is a second-order debate–in other words, a philosophical query about the nature of science, not a scientific question proper–about the status and reality of unobservable entities in scientific theories.  Realists think that, if a scientific theory employing use of unobservable terms (like “electron,” “quark,” and such) is predictively successful, that gives reason for thinking the terms actually refer to something real.  In other words realists believe those unobservables are real in those cases.  Anti-realists tend to stick with just observables when it comes to belief.  If a theory referring to unobservables in explanation is predictively successful, A.R’s do not think that is reason to actually believe in those things.

Since anti-realism goes against the common-sense grain, the temptation might be to write it off, but though I am not an anti-realist for the most part, I admit that there are many scholars–such as Harvard’s  Bas Van Fraasen (formerly at Princeton and Yale, now at San. Fran. St. U)–that employ sophisticated arguments on it’s behalf, and it’s highly unwise to dismiss them or act like they don’t exist.

H&M step into this debate and attempt to sidestep it with what they call “model-dependent realism.”  They say it differs from anti-realism, but it turns out that it is an extreme form of it.  They attempt no justification of it except to say that it “helps solve” a few “problems.”  They describe the view, but this is not the same as justification.

Their comments surrounding one of these problems are some of the most strange in the book.  While pondering what it means for a table in a room to “exist,” they ask how one can be sure the table continues to exist when no one is in the room observing it.  How do we know that it doesn’t disappear when no one is watching, only to reappear when someone re-enters the room?  According to H&M, the model that declares that the table continues to exist is “simpler” and it comports with observing the table upon entering and re-entering the room (a model in which the table disappears when no one is watching agrees with observation too, by the way)…and this is about as much as we can say.  We cannot say, though, that such a model accurately describes reality.

This realism vs. anti-realism is a topic on which volumes have been written, and this is all they can offer?

I am not saying they should interact in depth with every scholarly voice out there on these questions…but is it not too much to ask that they at least interact with some, and that, where they do not, they temper their confident assertions by simply noting that there are legitimate counter arguments out there?

An instance of this is their defense of the “multiverse” explanation of the anthropic principle.  Roger Penrose, a former collaborator with Hawking, has written a critique of the multiverse hypothesis.  Even if responding to the critique in depth is outside the purposes of the book, why didn’t H&M even give a mere mention of the critique? 

Another philosophical sticky spot is their declaration of determinism, another topic on which Craig writes.  They offer a very thin justification of their determinism, but never mind that…more problematic, it gets them into a very gnarly external conceptual problem (a logical problem in other academic disciplines that interact with science): if determinism is true, then what about the words within the pages of the book?  Those must be dertermined too, along with the reader’s assent/dissent of H&M’s arguments.  If determinism is true, H&M were determined by the chemicals to write what they wrote, and the readers are determined by the chemicals to agree or disagree.  Truth and rationality have nothing to do with it.  How can we be confident that their views are true?  They weren’t arrived at via rational thought. 

Craig puts it much better than I can when he says,

I wonder, for example, why they think that anything they’ve said in their book is true, since, on their view, they were determined to write it. Everything they say is the product of blind physical causes, like water’s gushing from a pipe or a tree’s growing a branch. What confidence can they have that anything they have said is true—including their assertion that determinism is true?

Determinism erodes any sort of rationality or justified true belief, yet H&M must write as if rationality is possible, as if it is possible to rationally persuade someone to choose to agree with a view of reality that is true.  Thus their whole project is at odds with their determinism. 

Read the links by Craig to get a sense of the other issues with the book.

There were two main reasons why I ventured into this unfamiliar territory.  First, there’s the element of engagement.  This book has been widely discussed and touted in the media and popular culture.  Hawking is one of the most influential scholars of our time.  Having read this book will hopefully open up many opportunities to engage with non-believing folks on the questions that matter, such as questions of origins and life’s meaning.  Bible friends, when you get a chance to engage with the world about spiritual things on it’s own terms, jump at the opportunity.

Secondly, when you interact with smart people that disagree with you (in this case, none other than Stephen Hawking), if they make good points and employ solid reasoning, that can lead you to question your own views.  On the flip side, if your views and beliefs have the advantage of being backed by logic, reason, and truth, putting them up against the best of the other side will reveal that, and thus confidence in your beliefs will be strengthened.  Either way, you come out ahead.  Since ideas have consequences and the truth matters immensely, whether your philosophical “opponents” are right or you are right, it sure does help to know that.  Pitting your worldview up against the viable alternatives can be a good way of coming to the truth.  It’s a win-win either way, because I want to know the truth no matter who possesses it.

→ 18 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

I’m Alive! Now, Let’s Talk About Rob Bell

Posted on April 8, 2011 | 2 Comments

Don’t worry, the P.I blog hasn’t gone cold permanently.  Between my philosophy class this semester (philosophy of science…heady stuff!), coaching the wrestling team, teaching, preparing for my daughter’s birth, and Crossfit, I’m finding little time to blog.  I’m not giving up on the blog, just posting less frequently (waaaaayyy less) for the time being.

So, what’s on tap for today’s post?  Let’s talk about Mr. Rob Bell.  Or rather, some of the conversations surrounding his writings.

Lately I’ve been privy to some conversations surrounding his new book.  Th

Rob Bell: nerdy, but in a hip way.

ere are lots of people questioning some of the things in his book (there are always people questioning his stuff), and invariably, someone (actually, many people) respond like so:

“He’s just asking questions.  Leave him alone!”

“He’s got opinions and he’s making people think.  He’s helping people figure out what they believe, and that can’t be bad.  Beg off!”

“Why are you being so mean and divisive?  Stop the judgmental spirit.”

“He’s just starting a conversation.  He’s on a journey and shouldn’t be put down for that.”

I’ll be the first to admit that some of the critique of Bell is quite shrill and over the top.  But much of it isn’t.  Much of it is a serious attempt at evaluating his beliefs for truth and fidelity to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  If he is advocating false beliefs and/or is leading people to depart from the truth that has stood the test of time, that is a legitimate concern.

I have no doubt that some of the Bell defenders who use the tactics above are sincere, but they are very naive.

 There are two types of asking questions–one, to get information or to inquire, and two, to make a point (aka “socratic questioning”). Bell’s a savy guy; most of his questions are of the second type, and therefore deserve to not be treated as mere “innocent conversation starters.”

Melinda Penner of Stand To Reason puts it well:

Even if someone is asking questions, the type of questions they ask in order to frame the debate tells us a great deal about their view and how they would answer the questions they pose. Bell tries to sidestep disagreement by saying he’s only asked questions, but he’s equivocating. There are different kinds of questions. Some are meant to elicit information; others are Socratic to get people to think and also to advance ideas. Bell’s questions are the Socratic type, but he acts as thought their the first type. He’s told us through those questions a lot about what he thinks.

Tim Challies adds:

Does Rob Bell deny the existence of hell? He would say no. We would say yes. He affirms, but only after redefining. And that’s just a clever form of denial.

Pay special attention to the kind of questions he asks.  That’ll tell you a lot about his beliefs. 

I really do have to shake my head at some of his defenders.  If he’s on a journey, it’s a veerrrry suggestive one.

Folks, if he is to be a player on the stage of ideas–and….he is, whether he acknolwedges it or not–his words deserve the same treatment as everyone else’s.

In other words: he’s a big boy.  His words, whether in question form or direct statement, get evaluated and assessed. He does not get a pass.

The question of whether he is teaching false ideas or leading people astray is, of course, another question for another time. I just tire of the same old “stop being mean and judgmental! You’re being divisive!” response to sincere attempts at evaluating his ideas.  Ideas have consequences–and so do questions.

So: y’all just need to cut that out.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part III

Posted on February 13, 2011 | 1 Comment

See part I here and II here.

Sorry for not posting for so long.  The wrestling season tends to get crazy.  Anyway (where she says “QUOTE,” she is quoting me in order to give context to her words):

Margaret: QUOTE“…yet those ads treat the Bible like it is a collection of isolated sentences.”

I don’t think that is the intention. As you mentioned, an ad has the problem of limited space. Knowing the people who put the ads up, I think the primary goal is to get people to think about what is really in the Bible. Most self-professed Christians haven’t read the Bible, and so seeing those single lines out of it are likely to be surprised. I would hope that it would spark enough curiosity that they’d crack the book open and find out what it really says.

RB: Perhaps…but to that extent, the ads are misleading. Besides, I’ve seen the same kind of treatment several times in humanist/atheist polemics against the Bible.

Margaret: QUOTE “The Bible would be much less confusing to you if you read it like everything else.”

I am fully aware that different parts of the Bible should be read different ways. I consider the Bible to be a valuable book in-of-itself for several different reasons (some literary, some historical), with some parts much better than others. The problem is with people who claim that the Bible the infallible word of God that they supposedly base their ethics and whole worldview on.

QUOTE “No mention of the mutual submission from Ephesians.”

Funny you mention that letter. The majority of Biblical scholars believe the letter to the Ephesians to be written by someone other than Paul. Regardless, Ephesians does not speak of “mutual submission.” It says that wives should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives, and the metaphor used for both is that the husband is like Christ and the wife is like the church. How the heck do you get mutual submission from that? Also, you haven’t explained the the correct interpretation of that passage is. Part of my argument is that the Bible is inconsistent and often contradicts itself. So you pointing out that some passages sound mysoginist while others contradict that doesn’t necessarily prove that the mysoginist-sounding passages are in fact pro-woman. You have to explain how and why they are pro-women in their supposed proper context.

RB: What are their reasons for thinking that it wasn’t written by Paul? By no means do I disregard the voice of scholars…its just that the most important thing isn’t the claim “scholars say,” it’s their argument, the “why” behind their claims.

I got mutual submission from the previous verse: Ephesians 5:21—“submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Your question perfectly demonstrates what I’m talking about: taking the larger context of the passage you had in mind helps hone in on what Paul meant. Submit to one another, then he explains what that means according to gender roles in the home. Wives, respect the husband’s leadership. Husbands, love, protect, and nurture wives like the gems they are. I don’t know why that is so horrible. There are certain things that husbands are suited well for and vice versa. Each is made in the image of God and is therefore equally valuable, and each contributes something to the relationship that the other lacks. By no means are the parts interchangeable. For example, my wife has an 18 inch waist…me, an 18 inch neck (ok, little exaggeration, but you get the point..:) ). If an intruder attacks our home at night, I’m not gonna say, “hey honey, I think it’s your turn to go check out that noise.” Paul isn’t saying that the husband is more valuable than the wife and can do whatever he wants, and he’s not giving the husband carte blanche to order the wife around.

Though some might thrust that meaning upon the text, its just not there…in fact, if you look at it, Paul gives the husbands much more instruction as to what he’s supposed to do than he gives the wife.

as far as the 1 Tim passage goes, let me quote another author’s argument, one that is possible (not a scholar, admittedly, but he makes sense. There are other arguments out there that might suit the passage better. This is just one possible):

“…the word man is aner and the word woman is gune . In the case of the word aner , which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40 times that it occurs, it is translated “husband.” In other words, “husband” is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn’t absolutely clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost always translated “husband” and “wife.” So this really is an unusual translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament.

So, I asked myself why would they break with the pattern in this passage? I think they were influenced by tradition, that’s why they translated this passage man and woman and not husband and wife.

What happens if we translate it husband and wife? That strikes me as a legitimate translation. It seems that when you translate it husband and wife, everything falls into place. Let me read it in that way: “Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness; but I don’t allow a wife to teach or usurp the authority of her husband, but to remain quiet.”

Is that strained? Not at all. Is that difficult? Not at all. The “quiet” there is in the context of receiving instruction. I think the point is not that she never speaks, but that she is the one who is in the position of being taught as opposed to being in the position of the teacher. The word “teach” here is not in the aorist tense. In other words, an aorist tense means a single point in time action rather than a continuous action. So, it isn’t saying that a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it’s that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritually speaking. That’s really what it amounts to.

Verses 1-8 is in one grouping, verses 9-15 is another. Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship.

Finally, no other place in Scripture teaches that all women should be under the authority of all men in the church. If this passage is to be interpreted the traditional way, this makes a new and unusual pattern of submission. However, the New Testament consistently teaches that a wife should be under the authority of her husband. That fits the larger context of the New Testament much better.”

Margaret: QUOTE “If I treated a humanist’s writing like that, I’d probably get skewered as being irrational.”

Again, I invite you to do the same to us as an example. Take a passage from, say, the Humanist Manifesto (or some other Humanist declaration), put it alongside a passage from the Bible, in a manner that makes Humanism look as bad as the Bible is made to look in those ads.

RB: Well, meeting that challenge wasn’t my main point, and I think I’ve given examples enough (Darwin, Einstein) to substantiate my point…but, here you go:

“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”

And

“The life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

And

“If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.”

And

“If the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would . . . be right to kill him.”

–all by Peter Singer, 2004 Australian Humanist of the Year

Now for the Bible quotes:

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 18:10

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.”—Psalm 127: 3

Here’s another one:

‘The universe we observe has … no evil and no good….DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Richard Dawkins

“Do not fret because of the wicked; do not be envious of evildoers, for they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb. Trust in the Lord, and do good; so you will live in the land, and enjoy security.” Psalm 37: 1-3.

Margaret: QUOTE “Same for the one about trusting in the Lord…the suggestion is that the Bible is obviously against using the mind to rationally think with logic and evidence. Again, no effort to understand what the proverb might actually be suggesting. If it really did say that and that was the Bible’s message (“logic/evidence/intellect=baaad. Feeelings=goood!”), the history of Christendom most likely wouldn’t include guys like Augustine, Lewis, Aquinas, and Plantinga, and passageas like Romans 12 wouldn’t be in the Bible.”

Again, I argue that the Bible, being written by many different humans (not God-inspired) over a long period of time, it contradicts itself. Can you explain how and why the passage quoted in the ad isn’t actually discouraging rational/logical thinking?

RB: The proverb recommends humility about one’s finitude. Being human, we oftentimes get out of our ken. I find that principle at work frequently in my job. I am a young, inexperienced coach. Oftentimes I get angry at my wrestlers/parents/referees, etc for not responding as I’d like. In times like that, if I operate according to my feelings and what I think is good to do in the moment (aka, “my own understanding”), I often rush into things and make mistakes.

So I’ve gotten in the habit of conferring with one of my assistants, who is much older, wiser, and has “seen it all,” or I confer with other older coaches I know who have a much more circumspect perspective. They often calm me down and give me stuff to think about that I miss. The same is true on a cosmic plane. We are pretty finite, but God has “seen it all” so to speak. Consulting His wisdom through prayer, Scriptures, and the body of believers often yields understanding that is much more solid than our own feelings.

This is pretty far away from eschewing logic, reason, and evidence. In fact, if you were to keep in mind what I’ve been saying about context, you’ll see that there are a great many proverbs Solomon wrote that deal with the value of wisdom and knowledge.

You don’t have to believe that the Bible is the word of God to attribute minimal intelligence to Solomon, and that he probably wouldn’t contradict himself so many times in one book.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,