Tag Archives: politics

An Equivocation of Biblical Proportions

Posted on September 3, 2012 | 3 Comments

I guess we really can’t accuse Bill Nye of mincing words…

A recent Bill Nye video has gone viral, in which he sharply criticizes those who “deny evolution” and charges them with holding society back.

Nye obviously possesses a great amount of expertise in his field. When he talks about mechanical engineering, for example, or how the body works, its probably best to simply take it all in.

However, as it often happens in science, the content of the “Big Think” video referred to above crosses into the domains of philosophy and theology. While the domains don’t totally overlap and not everything in science is of philosophical/theological import—it is hard to see how experiments involving the atomic mass of certain elements carries theological implications, for instance—there is considerable overlap and interaction across disciplines.

The “Big Think” video most certainly does have such import; he makes very broad, sweeping claims about evolution and those that deny (or doubt), and evolution deals with the question of origins. When these disciplines intersect, since they are all legitimate sources of knowledge (I have no reason to think Scientism to be even remotely accurate to the real world), it is appropriate for philosophers and theologians to have their say. Gould’s NOMA notwithstanding, both can speak to the scientist, just as the scientist can speak to both of them.

While I don’t want to just assume Nye is lacking in philosophical or theological training—that would be bad—I often find that scientists are lacking in those areas and hence are unaware of how their views raise problems outside of the limited confines of their expertise.  Whether it be on what qualifies as science in the first place, whether postulating a multiverse makes sense, or questions on the nature of time, philosophy helps immensely.  Neglect it at your own peril.

For example, in his most recent book, Stephen Hawking steps outside his ken and hence opens himself to trenchant philosophical critique. In his explication of a form of anti-realism he shows no awareness of any of the many critiques that have been brought against such a view. Furthermore, he embraces a hard determinism and hence undercuts the rationality of anything written on the page. Quite a few have pointed this out.

Hawking is second to none when it comes to knowledge in his field, but when one’s views within a limited area of expertise raises internal and external conceptual problems, it is time to proceed more cautiously or at least give evidence that you’ve thoughtfully interacted with the other side.

In Nye’s case, underlying his points are two very big philosophical questions: 1) what is science? and 2) what is evolution? Question 1), known as the “demarcation problem,” isn’t a scientific issue per se, as no experiment or observation will tell you the answer to that question (using an experiment or observation actually presumes an answer to the question). It is a second order philosophical question about the nature of a first order discipline.  Even when a scientist herself ventures an answer to the question, she is doing philosophy.

You might think its simple, but it is actually a pretty tough question to answer with any sort of finality, as any set of necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as science either a) excludes examples that clearly do qualify as science, b) are imprecise qualifications, or c) includes examples that clearly are not scientific.  Most definitions I’ve seen offered, to paraphrase Steven Meyer, die the death of a thousand counter-examples.  Even concepts like falsifiability or observation have problems with them.

That is not to say that anything goes in science and that there are no practices and procedures that are associated with the discipline, nor does it mean that we can’t tell clear-cut instances of science (acid titration experiments) or non-science (palm reading) when we see them without a definition of science. It simply means that dogmatic and certain, yet intellectually satisfying statements about what does and does not qualify as scientific are hard to come by, and these notions ought not be used to arbitrarily disqualify certain controversial cases.

As to question 2), my biggest issue is that he is incredibly imprecise. To repeat, that is an area in which philosophy can be of incredible use to science; it can analytically clarify key concepts and terms. I want to ask Nye: what do you mean by “evolution”? It can be a very slippery term. It can have several different meanings, and the veracity of pretty much everything he says in the video depends upon which definition of evolution he is employing.

There are at least six different definitions, some of them uncontroversial, some not:

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanism responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification is chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations

5. Universal common descent: all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor (or a select few ancestors).

6. The Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

You’ll find all of these definitions in play when it comes to evolution at one time or another. But Nye never nails down which one he’s talking about, and this allows him to equivocate back and forth. When anyone does this with evolution, it allows them (illegitimately) to use examples from evolution 1-4 (such as the peppered moth experiment, which is featured in many science textbooks) to substantiate evolution 5 and 6. This is exactly what Nye does in the video. The scientific veracity of each definition above is not equal. Some definitely are factual. Seems to me that 1-4 are pretty solid, and even the most ardent fundamentalist Christian shouldn’t have a problem with them on scientific or theological grounds. However, not only are 5 and 6 arguably theologically and philosophically debatable, but they are debatable scientifically as well. Those are not settled by any means.

Scientists have brought well-thought-out doubts about those two kinds of evolution, and their critiques deserve to be heard, not dismissed as religion or straw manned as literal six-day creationist views. Scientists like Nye also should consider the critiques of philosophers as well, as many have pointed out logical and conceptual problems with the materialist program. Since logic maps onto reality, if these guys have a point, their critiques represent serious challenges to the truth of the view and should not be waved away as subjective opinionizing.

How this equivocation can muddy the waters can be seen in the reaction of many in the media. I’ve read a few reports of the Nye video , and in every instance I’ve seen, the reporter labels Nye’s video as critiquing literal six-day creationism (one from the Huffington Post claimed in the headline that he “debunked” creationism in the video…good grief!). Nye never once, however, mentions that view. He simply mentions those who “deny evolution,” which would no doubt include six-day creationists, but includes many outside of that camp as well, including non-theistic critiques. When it comes to evolution, many just uncritically assume that literal six-day creationism is the only game in town when it comes to views that deny evolution and that therefore any doubt of evolution has to be religiously based.

If someone finds out you doubt evolution, the most common reaction is to first scoff, then ask, incredulously, “so, you believe the universe was created in six days only 6,000 years ago?” Like: “how could you live with yourself?”  Typically they can’t fathom any other view out there.

So really, though I have my suspicions—most of the time, when scientists like Nye make the sort of dogmatic denunciations the he made in the video, they have the latter two definitions of evolution in mind—I don’t know what kind of evolution he’s talking about. If he is talking about #5 and 6 above, then the most egregious error is when he says that those who deny evolution somehow “hold everybody back” and if they spread that to their children, they will not grow up to be scientifically literate and knowledgeable citizens. This implies some sort of scientific deficiency on their part.

What the heck is up with that?

Seems to me that this is just demonstrably false. The world is littered with evolution doubters and deniers who are first rate scholars and experts in every field, scientific or otherwise, and who have doubts precisely because of their expertise. I am familiar with the work of some of them, and their appreciation and knowledge of science is not hampered by their doubts.

Perhaps, for some reason, you reject the views of the Michael Behes, Steven Meyers, Alvin Plantingas, and Thomas Nagels (which is fair), but can you seriously look them in the face and say their scholarship and contribution to humanity is somehow second rate and its “holding everyone back”? There are others—engineers, physicists, teachers of the year, educators, doctors, phds, etc—who might not be in the public eye, but they doubt the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, and they still possess some of the top minds in their field.  Some doubt because of theological reasons, some doubt because of philosophical reasons, some doubt because of scientific reasons, and many aren’t necessarily proponents of intelligent design or creationism.

If he is simply ranting or venting in the video, that is fine and understandable. We all from time to time go on rants, and we need not clearly explicate everything, nor does every hint of hyperbole need to be nixed. Sometimes a generalization is just a generalization and its not meant to be picked apart.

I wonder if Nye would characterize his statements that way, though, and I wonder if we gave him more time, would he qualify his statements considerably (like they need to be if he wants them to be taken as anything other than a venting) or would he continue to defend them in their dogmatic form?

If he wants this video to contribute to the discussion on evolution in a meaningful way and be anything more than a “rah-rah” cheer for his side or a cursory summary of what he believes, he should clarify and deal fairly with his ideological opponents.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Of Milkshakes and Malcontents

Posted on August 11, 2012 | 1 Comment

So I sat down a few days ago and attempted to actually write something up about the Chick-fil-a controversy. I first tried to write a comprehensive post on the whole thing, including a response to the various sides. What I ended up with was about 15 pages and 5,000 words of pure tediousness, and I wasn’t even halfway done. Shoulda known better.

Then I tried to just focus on a small selection of reactions and still ended up having to circle back and point to those details I put in the comprehensive piece anyway. At this point it was 2:30am and my brain had ground to a halt. G’night!

This whole imbroglio was a big mess. That’s what happens when buzz words reign, a lot of fundamental and important issues get mixed together, emotions run high, and people use insipid Facebook memes and bumper sticker commentary to discuss a situation that has deep meaning and importance for people on both sides of the isle.

There were a few on both sides that had some incredibly insightful things to say, but it was drowned out by the bumper sticker voices.

Whether it was the meme below (which was one of the worst and least thoughtful responses in all of this–yet most popular), the bumper-sticker-ish “Jesus didn’t come to rally people to a cause,” (neither did He come to post sweepingly general Facebook status updates, but that didn’t stop you, did it?), the claim that August 1 was unloving  and divisive, that gays and lesbians felt hated , that standing in line and/or posting pictures on Facebook amounted to “shoving it in their face,” that the conflict represented a naked commercialism, the call from a friend of mine to “unite under King Jesus!” and go to Chick-fil-a, or the ubiquitous chant that Chick-fil-a and its supporters are symbols of bigotry—all of it was incredibly unsatisfying, and with each response like that—and there were plenty–I was left with more questions than answers. Predictable, I guess, but I was hoping for more.

This one is just…plain…bad. You’d never see the number of people who posted this meme go help at a food bank. Instead of wasting your time arguing on Facebook that this is true, why don’t you go serve at a homeless shelter instead? That’s something Jesus actually said to do. *See what I did there*?

If you posted this, you are part of the problem. You…yes you

So rather than saying what’s already been said or attempting to tackle every possible response¸ I’m simply going to link to some of the more thoughtful voices, ones that I think need to be heard. If any of you still care to chat about it, you know where to find me…at Starbucks (where I am right now, writing this).

Ok, I admit, this one’s pretty bad too.

First, here is the single most insightful post I’ve found to date, written by Matthew Lee Anderson. Kind of puts a human face onto each side, while at the same time maintaining the need for rigorous debate.

On the heels of that is Anderson teaming up with philosopher John Corvino, who as a gay man himself argues for same-sex marriage in his writings. They “get it” insofar as healthy dialogue needs to happen where the actual arguments of both sides are heard, and that is exactly what is not happening in our buzz-word charged culture.

Philosopher JP Moreland responds to a Matthew Paul Turner piece. Turner argues that the church “failed” last Wed, while Moreland argues that Turner’s points ignore many key distinctions and thus exhibit “royal confusion” about the support of Chick-fil-a. Note: given that Turner’s critique was aimed at Christians and Moreland’s audience is the same, Moreland assumes much background that secular minded folk might object to. His aim was to rebut Turner’s points given the ground common to the main audience, so a defense of that common ground is a side issue.

“Gay Patriot” has some good thoughts about the use of “hate” and “bullying” labels. I hesitate to return the favor—as he does—to the liberal left, but he nevertheless makes a good point about how those terms have lost their meaning. He also shows , as does this piece, that diverse voices have spoken in support of Chick-fil-a.

Last link from him: he has video proof  that Chick-fil-a does, indeed, discriminate—with LAZERS AND GUNFIRE!

I’m glad to hear that many, many libertarians and even liberals agree with us conservatives that the various politicians who weighed in greatly overstepped their bounds. They have been appropriately reigned in—for now. Actually, politicians getting away with this sort of thing isn’t new, so I think they will only be reigned in for a short while.

We frequently hear reassurances from the left that they “respect religious practice.” Ross Douthat says “whatever,” and therebye calls for some honesty. Nails it.

I’m not really the biggest Rachel Held Evans fan. However, she does have a few good thoughts in this piece from the other side of the ideological pond. We disagree about same-sex marriage and a whole host of other things…but she gets a few things right in this one…a few things. :)

The fact that she is a) coming from the left and b) leaves some space—however little—for the possibility that some went to Chick-fil-a on Wed out of justified principle makes the column link-worthy.

A friend of a friend writes about how a “Contrived Reciprocity of Conviction”  has led to much of the buzz-word speak.

Denny Burk  cautions us against buying into the overblown media narrative of what started this all. While you might object to the first point (though I still think it’s a good one), the second one is spot on. Both sides of the same sex marriage debate should pay attention to it.

Michael Kruger  gives a response to one prominent critique of CFA appreciation day.

Are Christians standing up to vicious persecution and tyranny? No, says Matthew Lee Anderson. The decision to eat or not eat at Chick-fil-a on Wed was not very morally momentous, and suggesting so cheapens the blood of the true martyrs that have given their lives for Christ all around the world. Still, while the statements of our politicians might not have been hard despotism, they reflected a kind of despotism nonetheless, and that deserves opposition. Anderson writes, “But the rightness or wrongness of a state of affairs isn’t determined comparatively, and to say that the calls by mayors and city councilmen to use the force of law to restrict Chick-Fil-A’s sphere of operations is wrong is not to say it’s the most grave wrong. Soft despotism may be soft, but it is still despotic.”

Lastly, on the topic of marriage itself–which I think is a side issue here with the whole Chick-fil-a kerfuffle, but nevertheless—James Everett  offers an interesting argument. Take special notice of the editor’s note: Everett is not promoting bisexual marriage, but pressing the point, via modus tollens, that many same-sex marriage advocates are inconsistent and discriminatory themselves, if we take their views on what defines unjust discrimination at face value. This is not a slippery slope argument, though that would be just fine. It is modus tollens. Though Everett doesn’t make this next point, a possible solution would be to define discrimination more reasonably, though that might mean one could not wield that accusation against conjugal marriage supporters. This shows the limits of such buzz word arguments.

There you have it. I don’t necessarily buy everything these authors are selling, but I link to them nonetheless because they represent some of the more thoughtful pieces I’ve read. I likewise can find some sympathy with guys like Turner, even though I think they largely miss the mark. We all might be sick and tired of hearing the words “Chick-fil-a” for the time being. Heaven knows I am! The issues the events brought to the forefront are enduring, though, and therefore deserve a sustained look, coupled with robust and rigorous public discourse (rather than the usual fare).

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , ,

Hoe Cakes

Posted on November 2, 2010 | Leave a comment

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged ,

Lord Save us From Your Followers

Posted on August 27, 2010 | 4 Comments

“The Church is a whore, and she is my mother.”

No one ever faulted Tony Campolo for mincing words.  The above quote actually comes from St. Augustine, but was repeated by Campolo in the documentary film Lord, Save us From Your Followers.

A few nights ago, I watched Lord Save us from Your Followers with a group from my church.  In the movie, Dan Merchant, the movie’s creator and narrator, travels across the country gathering people’s opinions about Christians and church.  He talks to people on the street, pastors, as well as pundits from both the left and the right.  At times funny and entertaining, it nevertheless is a serious  attempt to get Christians to engage with the world in a more loving and compassionate way.  It’s basically a film version of They Like Jesus but not the Church, or UnChristian.

There were some critiques Dan leveled that I agree with.  First, in one part he pitted  ”young conservatives” vs a group of “liberal media elite” in a Family Feud-like game.  The game was an attempt to see which group knew the beliefs and worldview of the other best.  The liberals won easily.  He then pitted a group of college age agnostics vs a group of college age Christians in the same game.  This time, the Christians didn’t even score a single point.

The outcome was not surprising to me.  In the small group discussion afterwards, a few commented on that part of the movie, saying that we Christians typically know what we believe but aren’t able to get outside our bubbles to engage with the beliefs of outside groups.  I think that commentary was far too kind…most aren’t able to articulate the basics of the gospel without resorting to sloganeering!  This is especially pronounced in youth, where fun, “just hanging out,” and entertainment dominate youth groups.

Second, I can sympathize with his critique of the polarization of political discourse in America.  Lots of heat, very little light.  In an age where ratings drive everything and short attention spans dominate the landscape, the mud slinging is standard fare.  More of a circus act than an informative conversation characterized by mutual respect.
When Dan was focusing on this issue, I thought of a conservative radio show I used to podcast.  The host is a very smart man with a law degree, and he is a big player when it comes to influencing public policy in our country.  I respect the guy greatly, but I confess his radio show always left me disappointed.  For starters, every podcast–and I mean EVERY podcast–featured a controversy that was sure to drastically alter the West for ages to come.  It was as if every little Supreme Court hullabaloo was the beginning of the second coming.  In addition, I was looking to actually be informed, but all the host did–for ONE FULL HOUR–was give “rah-rah” speeches intended to rally the troops.  Very little actual analyzation of the controversy and examination of the detailed arguments of both sides.  If I took the knowledge that I gained from that podcast and used it in a conversation with someone from an opposing view, I’d be out of luck within about 30 seconds.

All that to say: I sympathize with Dan when it comes to being dissatisfied with the nature of political discourse in the U.S.

I also am somewhat sympathetic in his critique of the Church.  We’ve failed to love others as Jesus loves them.  I’ve failed to love others as Jesus loves them.  So tell me something new.

It is at this point, though, where my sympathies end.  I can’t help but think that he has gone too far in his critique.  There *is* a place for legitimate critique and exhortation of the Church, Christians in general, and me as an individual; otherwise, this blog in general and this post in particular would be out of bounds.  We can always do better. 

However, this movie is a small part of a very large trend; it is quite common fare to criticize the church and Christians for being unloving, narrow-minded, and intolerant, etc, etc.  I hear apologies on behalf of Christians from the pulpit quite often.  My pastor is very fond of doing that.  On Facebook and in face to face conversations, my Christian friends will bag on Christians and the Church for being rigid and such.  Books that critique the church–such as the ones mentioned above–are best sellers and the talk of  the town.  We’re frequently wringing our hands about the offense we’ve caused non-believers.

It seems like we just have this urge to self-flagellate and beat ourselves up.  I have to wonder if it is healthy.  Yes, we all need a good butt kickin from time to time, but need we dwell on our *image* so much?

Incidentally, that little word–image–is one reason why I think this trend is potentially unhealthy and askew.  The majority of the focus centers on what others think of us.  A good part of the movie, for instance, was showing the average person’s reaction to the question “what do you think about Christians?”  All the answers were something like “narrow-minded, intolerant, stuffy, judgemental, condemning” etc.  Then the narrator asked them, “what do you think about Jesus?” and the answers were, “loving, forgiving, caring,” etc.  The conclusion we were supposed to reach was obvious.

An aside: to me, those interviews were meaningless.  What if the narrator were to take out the Bible and read from Luke 9: 23-27, Luke 13: 22-30,  or Revelation 19?  Would they have such rosy words for THAT Jesus?  The Jesus they showered such praise on was a Jesus made in their own image, not the Jesus of history and Scripture.

Its as if whenever someone says that about Christians–in other words, whenever someone is *offended* at what we say and do–we’re automatically in the wrong.  Yes, sometimes we are in the wrong, but this seems more of a knee-jerk reaction than anything else to me.  As one author has said, “the gospel is offensive.  Don’t add any offense to it, but don’t remove any offense that is already there.”

There is one scene in the movie where the narrator takes a cue from Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz and sets up a “confession booth” at a gay pride event.  The catch is that those at the event aren’t the ones confessing: Dan himself confesses and apologizes for the wrongs Christians have done to gays and lesbians.  He also apologizes for things he’s done, such as making gay jokes.

It was a novel idea, and it seemed like it got a positive response.  Those watching the movie lauded the act as something incredibly courageous.  I recognize that for some, apologizing comes hard.  Not for everyone, though.  After the event, my wife commented that for her, apologizing would be much, much easier than saying tough, yet loving words that someone might not want to hear.  Why?  The former would most likely gain her the good thoughts of others, whereas the latter might get her rejected. 

I am not saying that it would have been appropriate for Dan to instead get up on a soapbox and read Romans 1.  In that atmosphere, best to leave that one be.  It’s just that I don’t know why everyone acts like moral disapproval, tough words about sin, etc are easy!  Relatively few are going to reject you for doing things like giving out cups of water, saying “Jesus loves you,” and apologizing for past hurts…and those things are all the rage these days.  Not that we shouldn’t do all that, but people like that stuff…they don’t like to hear that the path they have autonomously chosen is the path of destruction and rebellion.  For Christians who want to be well liked (read: most of us), that makes it very tempting to cheer the nice stuff but shun the tough stuff.

I take it that we’re supposed to think that judging and condemning are bad things, and Christians should avoid them.  At one point, Dan chides the church for turning the “gospel of love” into the “gospel of being right.”  Love through your actions and use less words was the not-so-subtle message.  “We’re all out of words,” as one commentator put it.  The ‘ol phrase from St. Francis “preach the gospel at all times; use words when necessary,” was bandied about (incidentally, St. Francis probably never said this.  The guy was an evangelizing, fire-and-brimstone machine.  The American church simply would not tolerate him today.  It is more likely that the quote is a product of a sentimentalized, neutered, postmodern version of St. Francis. ).

The only way this image will improve significantly is if we focus on only grace, at the expense of truth.  As long as Christians stay faithful to the biblical witness and the gospel, the world will continue to think we’re judgmental and all that stuff.  Even if we are completely humble and loving, we can’t stay faithful to Christ and shed that image.  As much as we’d like to forget it, talk of sin, God’s judgment, and condemnation of false beliefs are all over the Bible.  Jesus thought He was right…that kinda comes along with the territory of claiming to be God, and for Christians who faithfully follow Christ, pointing to the “narrow road” also comes with the territory.  Very hard to “Jeffersonize” those things out.  In fact, the gospel doesn’t make sense apart from all that; why would Jesus die a horrendous death on a Roman torture device just to tell us that He loves us and that God has a wonderful plan for our lives?  If there are more ways to God than through Jesus, why did Jesus have to die?  The cross is more than just an example of God’s love; it is an objective cure to an actual spiritual/moral disease called sin.  Take that out and the Christian faith is plain silliness.

Yes.  We can love better (love sometimes requires tough words to be spoken–ever thought of that?  Anyway); but we should just get used to our image being less than what we desire.  A PR campaign will be the cure that kills the patient.

And on that phrase above: “we’re all out of words.”  Really?  Not even close.  Read the book of Acts.  Actions of service are a large part of that book, but do you know what is an even larger part?  Good ‘ol straightforward proclamation.  I sometimes get tired of saying this: it is not an either/or thing, but a both/and.  The Church has excelled in the past on acts of service and proclamation, and we should continue to excel in both.  The siren call of a better image should not sway us. 

It is natural to want to be well-liked.  But lets not let the tail wag the dog here.

And even though I share Dan’s concern with the polarized nature of political discourse, the one thing that is *not* a solution to that is for Christians to back out of the debates.  Though he never said it verbatim, I get the feeling that he’d be ok with us just packing our bags, getting out of politics, and just doing simple service.  Even if I misread him and he would not advocate that sort of response, I know plenty of Christians who would like nothing more than for us to get out of politics completely. 

At the very least, politics and the discourse that comes along with it is seen as a less spiritual enterprise.

I am all for a more civil debate, but silence is not an option, whether it be abortion, embryonic stem cell research, same sex marriage, big government vs. small government, etc, for that would leave others vulnerable to false and harmful ideas.  Those who have opposing ideas will keep on plugging their ideas and policies, and unopposed, those ideas will wreak incredible havoc.

Think of it this way: the last few years have seen the rise of strong and loving Christians entering the legal and political battles in foreign countries on efforts such as sex trafficking and child abuse.    Many have fought tirelessly in courts and legislatures to ensure vulnerable women and children are protected by law.  These legal and political battles can sometimes be nasty and intense.  Would we even think about advising these folks to back away from political discourse and simply “love others with actions?”  The thought is crazy, for we recognize the stakes. 

It is no different here.

I frequently bring up these themes on this blog.  I really don’t want to be that guy.  It’s just that this “either/or” message gets preached a lot, and people simply eat it up.  Every time I hear the so-called St. Francis quote said in church, it is followed by so many “mmmms,” and “amens.”  We don’t really have to put one or the other (words/actions without words) on the backburner…nor should we, biblically. I’m attempting to bring some balance to the discussion.  I heartily applaud Merchant’s exhortation to talk with non-believers, not at them, but we should be careful that we don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and let the pendulum swing to the opposite end.  There is room for both grace and truth, and love sometimes means risking rejection by saying tough….words.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

Same Sex Marriage Discussions on Facebook, Part II

Posted on August 8, 2010 | 3 Comments

Read Part I here.

*Rhetoric is winning the day.  Both Christians and non-Christians supported same sex marriage, and employed a healthy dose of rhetoric and buzz words heavily laden with emotional meaning to assert their views.  Most, though not all, hadn’t a clue what those buzzwords meant.

*”You’re advocating discrimination!”  Not in that sense, no.  It’s the same discrimination made towards polygamy, polyamory, polyandry or any other relationship that doesn’t serve a social purpose as effectively as a marriage with one mother and father.  Prop 8 draws distinctions among different types of relationships–same as when the law refuses to put two college roomies living together on par with a married man and woman, but it does not discriminate towards individuals.

*”You’re denying gays and lesbians equality and fairness.  You’ve got the right to marry and they don’t.”  Actually, gays and lesbian individuals have the exact same rights as I.  Any gay man can marry any woman of any race that consents and is of the minimum age, and the same is the case with me.  What ssm advocates are pressing for is the elimination of the gender requirement and the wholesale changing of the meaning of marriage.   At bottom, the principle behind all this is the notion that marriage is a mere social construction, that anyone can define a family any way he chooses, with government/societal approval.  Nature no longer defines the institution, it is subject to whim.  When this idea takes root, there will be plenty of negative consequences.

I realize this might not hit you square between the eyes, so let me elaborate by quoting Greg Koukl:

“Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That‚s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.  The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

*Many mentioned “love” as a reason why they support same sex marriage.  In other words, we should love and accept gays and lesbians, showing compassion for them.  I agree fully with that.  My discussion partners carried that on further, however, suggesting that means lending support for same sex marriage.   My question: does “love” mean you must support and accept everything the beloved does or desires?  I’m glad my parents, friends, and co-workers don’t think so.  Whenever I do something that is morally wrong, harmful to myself, or harmful to others, many voices step in to voice loving opposition.  A few friends knocked some sense into me during my college days when I chased around a few girls that were bad news.  This is common sense to most of us, but why does this ethic suddenly fly the coup when it comes to homosexual behavior?  It is this lifestyle and behavior which same-sex marriage legitimizes by government fiat (it does other destructive things too).  Most ssm advocates will admit this, that its not about benefits and such: it is about social acceptance of homosexual relationships.  SSM places homosexual relationships on par with heterosexual ones, and this is what they’re after.

*Now, I know many earnestly desire such acceptance.  Even if I conceded that it social acceptance of homosexual relationships is a thing to be desired, why think it’s a “right”?

*How does same sex marriage harm others and society?  How do legitimizing homosexual relationships do so?  Many have misconstrued this issue by making it an individual thing.  They’ve asked, incredulously, “Rich, how does the homosexual couple next door hurt you at all?”  The answer is that it doesn’t, but that’s not the issue. 

Ideas have consequences. Let’s start there. The ideas of the “sexual revolution” of the 60′s, for instance, have wreaked havoc on society. Ask anyone who grew up in a divorced home how those ideas have affected them. Yes, the bedroom …activity of the couple next door might not affect *me* as an individual, but we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about ideas and morality enforced through public policy.  The striking down of Prop 8, by the way, was an enforcement of certain ideas and morality regarding marriage. We conservatives aren’t the only ones seeking to enforce ideas and morality through law.

Cars are designed for a purpose, with certain specifications of use. If I piss in the gas tank or drive it on the bottom of a lake (if I use it against its design, in other words), its going to break down. Likewise, humans are designed too. This design shows itself on every plane: physical, emotional, relational, sexual, etc. If someone behaves in a way that cuts against that design, problems happen. If I drink myself into a stupor every weekend, my liver is gonna shrivel to the size of a rasin. And so on. When it comes to homosexual behavior, this is easiest to see on the physical plane (no anatomy lesson needed), but you can see it on the other planes too: relationally, men and women fit like “hand in glove.” There is something that each gender possesses that the other lacks.  It’s not just that they’re merely “different,” but complimentary.  And it’s not a mere personality or feelings issue either, as in “my friend and I really get along well,” or “my romantic partner and I ‘click.’  I feel alive when we’re together!” but a deeper, more fundamental nature thing…anyone, religious or none, can see this.

For more specifics, some chapters in the books Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate* has some.

*Children need and deserve a relationship with both his/her mom and dad.  The optimal family structure for a child’s well being is one in which a mom and a dad are present.  I reckognize, of course, that not every kid gets this.  Some come from single parent homes, and it is not always due to that single parent.  In these situations, we do all we can to care and support that parent and the child.  Some children from these homes turn out allright afterall, oftentimes due to the heroic efforts of the single parent or a close mentor.  For some, one parent is abusive, and its better to be away from that adult.  Whatever the situation, though, very few would go on to balk at the general principle above, and few would suggest that those family structures are just as preferrable to those with a mother and father. 

There is a boat load of research backing this up (see the footnotes), but you don’t need to pour over studies to see that.  Experience confirms it as well.  When I worked as a teacher in an inner city school, if I had a dollar for every tired and haggard single mom that came through my classroom door dragging an out of control teenage boy with her, no father in sight, I coulda retired a while back.  If I were a bettin’ man, I’d bet she’d prefer to have a father in the picture.

Legalizing same sex marriage scoffs at the principle by asserting that there’s no real benefit to having both a mother and a father in the home.  Everything jr gets from dad he can get from another mom, and everything jr gets from mom he can get from another man.  We really should pause and ponder before we embrace that idea.

*Question for those who advocate for same sex marriage: do you really believe that men and women are completely interchangeable as parents?

*I also reckognize that not every marriage has children in it.  Some earnestly desire to conceive, but for some reason can’t, while others remain childless by choice for one reason or another.  If I may use a humorous illustration: not everyone uses ash trays for ashes…some use them for food.  Just because some use an ash tray as a food container, though, doesn’t negate its intended use…in the same manner, just because some marriages don’t have children doesn’t mean that bonding mother and father to child and mother and father to each other is not an essential purpose of marriage.  Exceptions don’t trump the general principle.

*A few in the discussions brought up our racial past, seeking to make a connection.  You know, the ‘ol “they said the same thing about interracial marriage way back when.”  There’s one huge difference here: race is incidental to marriage, but gender is essential to it.   There are no significant differences to differing races that matter to marriage.  Just look at it biologically: men of any race and women of any race have the plumbing to “get the job done.”  A white man can mate with a black woman and produce a healthy child.  There are enormous differences between the genders, though, that matter tremendously to marriage and raising children.  Again, think of it biologically.  As I’ve already mentioned, the same applies when it comes to raising children.  The genders are complimentary.

Dennis Prager puts it nicely:

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

Frank Beckwith elaborates more on the legal side why the analogy fails.

*At this point I should probably mention the recent studies that purported to show that kids do as well with same sex parents as they do with opposite sex parents, because someone mentioned those studies.  When I asked her for details, she failed to provide any, preferring instead to ridicule.  There are two that I’m aware of.  One comes from the United States National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study and the other is a summary of studies by Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz.

Both have been subject to much criticism. For the first, the sample size was quite small–78 children born to lesbian couples, plus a control group.  In addition, the lesbian couples were not randomly sampled, but instead recruited from lesbian and gay groups/communities.  It might be tough to get a random sample for a study like this, but the mere fact that they were non-randomly selected volunteers biases the results.

Furthermore, ethnicity and region of residence differs between the groups too.  There were many more minorities and those from the South in the control group.  As much as we might not like to admit it, that skews the results too.  Finally, the study made heavy, though not exclusive, use of self-reporting from the lesbian mothers.

As to the second, the authors actually end up saying that women are better: two women are better than a man and a woman.  In other words, totally get rid of dad, because he is disposable.  This is far different from saying the gender of parents doesn’t matter (which is controversial enough).  Here are a few quotes:

“Two women who choose to parent together provide a ‘double dose of middle-class feminine approach to parenting.’”

“Women parenting without men scored higher on warmth and quality of interactions with their children than not only fathers, but also mothers who coparent with husbands.”

“If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”

 

(HT: Jennifer Roback-Morse)

This should give us great, great pause in jumping on the Stacey-Biblarz bandwagon.  We ought not blithely throw these studies around gleefully. The idea that fathers really aren’t needed, for one, has been tried on extensively in the inner cities and found wanting. More is found here.

At some point, dissenters usually respond by saying, “well, I was raised by only my mom, and I turned out ok.”  I’m glad, and many single parents deserve a huge pat on the back and much support, but it is odd that when we are talking about general societal trends, people’s first response is to turn it a) individual (*I* turned out ok), and b) feelings focused (I didn’t *feel* a difference).  We’re so individualistic that that is our knee jerk reaction. 

Remember, I nor anyone else is saying that any and all kids raised by some arrangement other than a mother and father will 100% turn out “bad” or that you as an individual are ”messed up.”  I don’t know your situation individually.  I just know the trends and I know the human design I see in nature.  What I am saying is that there is a huge trend in society that shows moms and dads matter.  Statistically and generally experientially, it affects children.  Check out the links I provided, and think back to my illustration with the inner city.  Sure, in my time as a teacher there, I met plenty of well-adjusted kids raised by single parents, or in some cases, same-gender parents.  But those were dwarfed by the numbers the other way.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Same Sex Marriage Discussions on Facebook, part I

Posted on August 8, 2010 | 1 Comment

I recently participated in a few discussions on Facebook regarding Judge Walker’s ruling overturning Proposition 8.  Here are some reflections on those discussions:

*As weird as it sounds, I originally jumped in because I didn’t really want to.  A friend of mine recently told me that, “if you want to grow, you must put yourself in increasingly uncomfortable situations.”  I didn’t want to get involved in these discussions because I admit I was a bit intimidated.  Advocating the biblical point of view when it comes to homosexuality and/or same sex marriage, or many times even asking challenging questions of those who approve of homosexual behavior/relationships,  gets mental daggers and verbal rocks thrown your way.  I don’t like that any more than the next soft-skinned, comfortable American.  I realized my feelings on the matter, and jumped right in.

Most of the people, though, were pretty respectful.  There were only a few who spewed vitriol.   Not too bad.  When folks do that–when they play the ‘ol “you’re ignorant/bigoted/hateful/unloving/judgemental/ugly” card–they need to be called out.   Far too often, conservatives and Christians allow themselves to be bullied around by that sort of tactic.  We somehow think we have something to apologize about in those situations.  The Church has plenty to apologize about, but name calling isn’t an indication of that.  People do that so much because it works…it often culls people into silence.

So time to speak up and call a spade a spade.  “Calling out” is what I did.   Name calling is not an argument…it’s a verbal temper-tantrum because someone disagrees with you, and that’s it.  Saying I’m wrong is fine.  Critiquing my view with toughness is fair game.  But leaninig on the faithful “you’re ignorant!” response shows that you’ve got nuthin.

*This would be a great time for churches to step up and educate their flocks on both the biblical view of marriage in general, the biblical view of homosexual behavior, the public welfare arguments against same sex marriage, and how to advocate for those in a compassionate manner. This is an awesome opportunity for churches to inform and equip, but my hunch is that it won’t happen. Most will sit by and let other outlets woo with rhetoric. Most won’t go near the topic and will stay silent. There are some apologetic organizations out there doing a stellar job on this front, but few churches, though that’s just a hunch.  As much as I hate to bag on the church (it is a favorite pass time of Christians and non-Christians alike.  Very common for Christians to bash the Church and apologize incessantly, much more rare to encourage and spur it on.), I just gotta say it.

*Many have misunderstood the role religion has played in this, and have also misunderstood the legitimacy of relgion in this debate. First, I, and others, are completely within our bounds to let our views be informed by the Bible or any other holy book, and we are completely within our First Amendment rights in having our voting convictions informed by such Scriptures. This happens all the time with more liberal views, in fact, with virtually no one raising an eye brow. How many times have I seen religious people reference the Scriptures and/or make religiously motivated appeals for health care reform (Obama himself did it!), outlawing capital punishment, offering contraceptives in schools, and, yes, the legalization of same sex marriage? Answer: often, but no one, and I mean no one, cries foul because they violate the Establishment Clause or because they are religious in nature. The debates in those instances are on the merits of the appeals themselves (“does the Bible really call for the outlawing of capital punishment?” for instance), which is right where those debates should be…and it shouldn’t change here regarding Scriptural and religious references against same sex marriage.

A Muslim should be able to vote his conscience. A Hindu should be able to do the same. Ditto with an atheist, the secularist, and, dare I say, the Christian. All are fully within their citizenly rights to vote according to their convictions and worldview.  Having a religious “agenda” doesn’t disqualify someone from participating in politics.  The First Amendment guarantees it, not outlaws it.  If Joe from your local GLBTQ organization wants to address a Metropolitan Church congregation and talk to them about “Same sex marriage and the Bible” to get them to agree with him, more power to him. James from Focus on the Family should be able to do the same when it comes to lobbying the faithful for his point of view. One will be incredibly, horribly mistaken about his case, but not because he references religion in his appeal.

No one should have to shed their worldview and act/vote as a secularist, though I have the inckling that is what Christians are being asked to do, and no arguments should be swept off the playing field because they either comport with Scripture or come from religious people/organizations, though that is what’s happening here. Otherwise, laws against murder, theft, white collar crime (Jim Wallis, anyone?), perjury, and a host of other laws would be suspect.

I do admit, however, that there is a difference between being religiously motivated/allowing Scripture to inform beliefs, and making an argument in the public square of ideas about public policy. If I show up in the California legislature and argue against same sex marriage by opening up to Romans or 1 Corinthians, that is not gonna fly. In that sphere, I must make arguments (and there is a distinction between arguments and motivations, I hope you can see that) based on the public welfare, common morality, and nature, since people from a wide array of backgrounds find common ground with those things.

When it comes to this, folks on both sides of the debate somehow think that the only arguments against same sex marriage are religious in nature. The best arguments do not make reference to Scriptures, though they comport with them. I’ve made such arguments frequently and have seen others make them in the public square, but people just act like they don’t exist. Mostly they are dismissed, twisted into being religious, or ignored completely.

An aside: you can legislate morality, btw. Though Judge Walker scoffed at that, his own decision shows he tried. Legalizing ssm legislates a certain moral point of view.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,