Nonesuch

Saturday, the New York Times published an op-ed in the Sunday Review section entitled, “Americans:  Undecided about God?” by Eric Weiner, author of Man Seeks God:  My Flirtations with the Divine. He identifies himself as a brand new (to me), but apparently fast growing spiritual demographic, the “Nones.”

He says that nearly 12% of the US are Nones (as opposed to nuns), and a quarter of young people (no age range given). What are the Nones? They are people who do not identify with any specific or organized religion, yet believe in “God.” They consider themselves spiritual, yet are ‘undecided’ and will explore a wide variety of ‘isms’ and probably cherry pick from each.

Weiner cites a Notre Dame/Harvard study that indicates this trend towards amorphous spiritualism is due to the increasing religious polarization of politics and how it drives folks away from both politics and organized religion. I think that is far too simplistic.

Feelings

Several weeks ago I posted a commentary about Mormonism and whether or not it might be a cult, which came up as a result of the furor over Mitt Romney as a Mormon presidential candidate. Since that whole episode, the Mormon PR team has covered the country with billboards and other ads promoting their faith. One online ad caught my eye in particular, but not in a favorable light. It had a picture of a very attractive young woman with the quote, “I feel God is proud of me for who I am.” (or something very close to that).

The problem with that ad is a cultural issue endemic in mainstream Christianity and the culture as a whole, and is not unique to the LDS church. Simply put, it is deriving truth from emotion.

God gave us emotions and intuition. In fact, I am a fairly intuitive person much of the time. However, I view our emotions primarily as spice, or seasoning in the decision making process. The “meat and potatoes” of clear thinking are truth, wisdom and logic, in that order.

Sophomorisms

Tuesday I was walking on campus and came upon a co-ed standing at the top of some steps and reading out loud from some document, much like some campus preachers read Scripture to passers-by. There was a guy with a camera filming her, and another guy who shoved a leaflet in my hand entitled, “What is a Free Thinker?”

Under that was the following:

“free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Free thinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.”

“No one can be a free thinker who demands conformity to a bible [sic], creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.”

The Power of Myth

According to Dictionary.com, a myth is “a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.”

Ancient myths endure and contemporary ones spring up because they are stories that reveal something about us and or resonate with our experience, usually lifting us to a higher level of awareness of what we can be, urging us on to higher, nobler things. That is why Christ taught in parables, because the medium of a story engages both the head and the heart.

A challenge exists that all such accounts with the appearance of myth must therefore be categorized as such with the inherent assumption that it is merely a story with little if any historical veracity, though culturally and morally valuable. Joseph Campbell is one of the most well-known advocates of this idea. He maintained that the similarities among the various mythologies spanning the many cultures of the world, both in form and substance, were indicative of a common human condition that inspired similar narratives.

Things We Know, Yet Aren’t So

We can all think of things that we are sure are true, have been convinced of their veracity since we were knee high to grasshoppers, only to discover…the TRUTH….

Pro wrestling is real

Santa Claus

The Tooth Fairy

The Easter Bunny

The world is flat

I’m from the government and I’m here to help

Recently I learned that Ben Franklin never said, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” He really said, “Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.” At least that one isn’t too far off.

Today another cherished quote bit the dust.

You Can Lead a Horse to Water, But You Can’t Make It Read the Syllabus

Today’s thought comes from a friend’s Facebook comment:  “help...students not reading the syllabus then getting burned at the end of the semester, it is so sad to see..”

One of her friends commented,: "Yeah...I give my (esl) students a syllabus activity on the first day and a syllabus quiz the next day during the first week of class. It helps a little, but not as much as you'd think.”

Unlikely Bedfellows

One of the cooler features of the blogging platform TSR uses is the ability to track various statistics about site traffic. I can see how many hits to the site, the most popular posts, from what countries visits have come (my favorite), search terms used to find the site, and the referring websites. This last is particularly interesting because a referring website is one that in some way has a link back to TSR on which someone has clicked. That’s how I know for instance that Martin Gaskell’s guest post has been the most popular post by a huge margin and that the viewers have come largely from BBC, The UK Guardian, and various atheists’ own blogs.

Periodically, I’ll track back to these referring sites to see in what context the blog is mentioned and what those sites have to say. Last week, I posted about a chart I found on one of these atheist sites, and today I want to strongly agree with an atheist blogger I recently read through this exercise.

Greta Christina, in a post entitled, “No, Atheists Don't Have to Show ‘Respect’ for Religion,” eloquently argues against the spirit of ecumenicalism prevalent among “progressive and moderate” followers of various religions. Amen.

We must be careful to define our terms. In this context, ecumenicalism is defined as accepting other religions as equally valid to your own. This is different from the ecumenicalism within a given religion where the different sects/denominations agree to disagree and still have fellowship on the foundational tenets of that particular faith. This type of ecumenicalism is healthy, valid, and I encourage that, and I suspect Greta would, too.

So why is an atheist opposed to ecumenicalism? She gives basically two strong arguments:

1) Hypocrisy. She describes the tendency of ecumenicalists to talk about loving people of other faiths, tolerating and accepting their differences… until an ‘extremist’ or ‘fundamentalist,’ or, heaven forbid, an ‘atheist’ shows up. Then, these people are evil. It’s fine to tolerate those who tolerate you in the spirit of tolerance, but there is only intolerance of those perceived to be intolerant. “Everyone is welcome into our group, unless you criticize it, then you’re not only out, your voice has no validity.” She’s right. There is a significant inconsistency to the logic that largely invalidates their message.

Similarly, she argues, these folks (and I suspect many people who are conservative in their faith are guilty of this too—it’s a very human tendency.) will “engage in fervent political and cultural discourse” on any manner of topics, but when religion is thrown in as a topic to be dissected and criticized, then it is unfair. In other words, you can be critical of any aspect of culture except religion—that is sacred and untouchable and its very existence justifies itself against cross-examination. Again, I agree. If faith is a rugged and viable worldview and force on society, then it should be strong enough to withstand critique and attack. The fact that one tries to shield it from attack shows that person’s very lack of faith, as I suggested recently. Throughout Scripture, God challenges skeptics and believers alike to take Him on, to question Him, to see if He can come through. (Psalm 34:8, Isaiah 1:18 and Isaiah 7:10-17 are the first that come to mind.)

2) Apathy about truth. Greta readily recognizes that the different religions are fundamentally different and often mutually exclusive. They can’t all be right, and may all be wrong. Therefore, in order to go about professing that so and so’s religion is just as valid as yours is to completely ignore the real sticking points in the basic tenets of both faiths. It’s like saying all religions are like different flavors of ice cream (as long as they don’t have nuts), when in reality they are different maps that can’t agree which road has the bridge out. Again, it is a catastrophic error in fundamental logic.

She writes:  “In my debates and discussions with religious believers, there's a question I've asked many times:  ‘Do you care whether the things you believe are true?’ And I'm shocked at how many times I've gotten the answer, ‘No, not really.’” She destroys this blasé vapidity quite well, and I encourage you to read it. Again, amen. I am particularly puzzled by “Christians” who share this attitude, because by calling oneself a Christian, it implies an agreement with the One who claimed, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (John 14:6) Hmm, seems like we’re back at hypocrisy again…

Finally, she closes well, arguing that ecumenicalists apparently see only two ways to handle religious diversity. Either banish, oppress or otherwise attempt to destroy the other views, or pretend the real differences don’t exist. She proposes (start cheering!) Door #3:  accept there are differences and discuss them vigorously but peaceably. In short, live by the original definition of tolerance:  “The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others”. You can recognize and respect the differences without accepting or endorsing them. Again, this is how ideas are refined and false, incompatible or ineffective ones worn away.

While she doesn’t explicitly say it, I suspect Greta has at least some respect for people of faith who stand by their beliefs, even if they don’t do it appropriately, because they are at least trying to be consistent with the religion’s tenets and recognize that the differences are real and those differences have implications in the way the real world works.

The funny thing is that Greta, the ecumenicalists, and I all agree that views that espouse hatred, violence and oppression are an anathema. What I think I would most like Greta and her friends to understand is that it is possible to be evangelical and even fundamental (by their literal definitions rather than the current social connotations) and still be tolerant in the classic sense. There are a number of Christians, particularly among faculty (though far from exclusively!), who long to have meaningful discussions about evidence, logic, reasons, strengths and weaknesses about the various worldviews without ad hominem attacks on one’s intelligence or personal worth. These are folks who believe in a God real enough and strong enough to handle doubt and hard questions without being either vindictive or dismissive towards those arguing with integrity.

It’s funny how this whole discussion boils down to one word with many facets:  respect.

It’s also funny how respect is one of the primary characteristics of a central Biblical concept:  love.

Maybe, just maybe, this is how one begins to display obedience to one of Christ’s commands:  “Love your enemies, and bless those who curse you.” It ain’t how the world operates, and therefore reveals one of the primary, real differences between Biblical Christianity and the rest of the world’s religions:  God took action to redeem humanity instead of demanding humanity fix itself first.

“Christ arrives right on time to make this happen. He didn't, and doesn't, wait for us to get ready. He presented himself for this sacrificial death when we were far too weak and rebellious to do anything to get ourselves ready. And even if we hadn't been so weak, we wouldn't have known what to do anyway. We can understand someone dying for a person worth dying for, and we can understand how someone good and noble could inspire us to selfless sacrifice. But God put his love on the line for us by offering his Son in sacrificial death while we were of no use whatever to him.”

“Now that we are set right with God by means of this sacrificial death, the consummate blood sacrifice, there is no longer a question of being at odds with God in any way. If, when we were at our worst, we were put on friendly terms with God by the sacrificial death of his Son, now that we're at our best, just think of how our lives will expand and deepen by means of his resurrection life! Now that we have actually received this amazing friendship with God, we are no longer content to simply say it in plodding prose. We sing and shout our praises to God through Jesus, the Messiah!”

                                                                                                                Romans 5:6-11, The Message

SDG

Faith and Fear

Continuing yesterday’s discussion on faith and fear, I’d like to suggest that faith is a muscle or tool to be used and strengthened through that use, not a porcelain trinket that must be protected and hidden away.

When we protect our faith from all attacks, real or perceived, we run the risk of actually turning it into an idol, lifting it above the God with whom our faith is meant to be the vehicle of relationship. It is like sleeping with a marriage license and keeping the spouse in a file cabinet.

Paul called our faith a shield for quenching fiery darts, and sometimes believers seem to prefer to keep it polished in storage so it won’t get scratched. Then, logically, if we are not carrying it with us, we become afraid to come out.

There is a second mistake believers make with our faith shield. We hunker down behind it because the rest of our armor is missing or we don’t feel we know how to use it. We are afraid to use the sword of Scripture because we feel we aren’t prepared for the clever tricks of the enemy attempting to disarm us, so we curl up and let our faith get beat on or run from the engagement.

Again, this is all summed up in the one word, fear. Robert Kiyosaki of “Rich Dad” fame calls fear, “False Evidence Appearing Real.” Not bad, even with the strong whiff of aged cheddar coming off of it. But that is exactly why Paul talks about Scripture being a sword, testing for truth versus falsehood. Faith without truth is under siege. Faith with truth advances.

In college, I took a fencing class and loved it. I’ve always been fascinated by swords and swordplay. One thing about swordplay, you are limited by the number of strokes or moves you know. If you only know one way to block an attack, then your opponent will use others and you become defenseless. If you only know one type of lunge or slash, your opponent quickly learns how to block you completely. To become proficient, you need different teachers who teach different styles, you need to spar with different opponents, you need to be familiar with different types of blades, and so on.

It is the same with our study of the Bible. Most of us do not speak ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek. We don’t understand the different approaches to translation and the effect of the translator’s theology on the nuances of translation. We listen to just a few Bible teachers and come to rely on them rather than critically evaluating what they say. We don’t spend time in commentaries or reading theologians with whom we disagree. We don’t discuss with each other the hard things and examine them in a safe, controlled environment before facing them in life.

As a result, we become very one-dimensional in our ability to apply Scripture to the challenges of our lives and the challenges by our culture and education, and thus have less proficiency in addressing difficult issues. We become afraid, and our faith shrivels or becomes the only tool we have and try to make it do more than it is meant to. This is not the abundant life to which Christ calls us.

The solution? Practice with your sword like your life depends on it. It does.

SDG

Left Behind

The “Left Behind” series and the like came to mind this evening. Regardless of your take on their literary quality or theology, they proved to be masterly impactful on not just the church but our society as a whole. I truly believed God worked through them to draw people to Himself. But that’s not what I want to write about.

The thought that has buzzed through my brain this evening is that should the pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture view of end times be correct (and that is the direction my theology leans), what will be the impact of my sudden absence?

One might think the same thing about any sudden/accidental death that might remove me from the scene, sure, but I’m being specific here—should millions of people suddenly ‘vanish’ and I were one of them, what would be the response of my colleagues? My students? Others in my community?

Would they be surprised that I was one of those ‘religious’ people? More importantly, as they sifted through all of the competing theories on the cause of the disappearances that would be flooding the news, would their understanding of who I am help draw them to the correct conclusion? Is my life such that my sudden absence would not merely be a significant inconvenience to my department as they cover my classes, not merely possibly sadden a few, but point clearly to the truth of the Gospels and Scripture because I, myself, am one of the missing?

SDG

Tradition versus Fact versus…

Having recently watched the DVD, “The Star of Bethlehem,” which seems to be going viral among our churches, I am struck once again about the power of our traditions. When you ask the average person to describe the star, they will probably describe something to the effect of a preternaturally bright and large star with rays that somewhat resemble a cross. Yet, the DVD (and the Bible) implies something far more subtle, otherwise, why would the Jerusalem court be so baffled by the appearance of the magi, and question them so carefully?

Did Washington chop down the cherry tree? What was the real story of the First Thanksgiving? What really happened in any of a number of historical events that time or cover-ups have hidden? Did many of our Christian symbols come from pagan sources or was it parallel development and common symbolism?

Now for the real question:  does it matter?

Or when does it matter?

When we first teach students about the structure of an atom, we use a solar system analogy. Then after a while, we tell them that picture is nearly completely wrong, at least as far as the electrons are concerned. Yet, there are conveniences/uses in maintaining the ‘wrong’ picture of the atom, at times.

Does it matter that the star is likely a very subtle, yet amazing astronomical feature? Yes, because it reveals the complexity and beauty of God’s providence and glory. No, because the tradition and the things based on the tradition (carols, paintings, stories) also communicate the power of the nativity to peoples’ hearts and souls, drawing them closer to God. I have no problem holding both in my mind. I know the truth, and I appreciate and benefit from the ‘artistic license’ history and tradition have taken with the facts.

They say that most legends have a kernel of truth within them. So why the legend? Why not keep the truth alone? Humans respond to story, and they (we) like stories larger than life because it inspires and teaches us. There is usually a place for both truth and truths, as long as each points to the Truth.

SDG