Losing faith vs. Losing church

Empty pews. Is the church dying? What about Christianity? What about religion? What about spiritual beliefs? What about God himself? In true American fashion, the trend in this country has been to disavow insitutional forms of religion and to keep or maintain religious belief to some extent in God. Time is trying to track this trend and make something of it.

Yet rumors of religion's demise turned out to be premature... as a new report from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows, it is a mistake to conclude that more Americans are rejecting religion. Leaving church, it turns out, doesn't mean losing faith...

"The U.S. has an unmatched religious dynamism," explains Lugo. "It's an open religious marketplace as well as a very competitive one. This is the supermarket cereal aisle." Without an established state religion, all faiths can freely exist in the U.S. but must compete for adherents in order to survive.

Our plurality in belief is certainly represented by the plurality that is allowed by our founding documents. Our smorgasbord and super-independent spirituality mirrors our marketplace- eBay, Amazon, iTunes, craigslist, etc. But we lose something if we lose organized religion. Can we be just as spiritual in the future if we're not reading religious texts and being influenced by religious institutions in our cities and neighborhoods? We might still be spiritual now, but is it only a matter of time before we'll lose that influence too?

Gay Rights Continued

Yesterday I discussed the church and gay rights. Today, Colorado healthcare (from AP):

A bill allowing partners of gay and lesbian state workers to get health insurance coverage is headed to the governor.

The bill got final approval Tuesday in the House. Same-sex partners who've been in a committed relationship with a state employee for at least a year would qualify for coverage. The sponsor, Democratic Rep. Mark Ferrandino of Denver, says gay couples don't have the option of marrying and it's only fair to provide an alternative.

Republican Rep. Kent Lambert of Colorado Springs says it will be costly and is unfair to heterosexual couples who are committed but not married.

Opponents also say the measure violates the will of the voters, who passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage and rejected domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

Pragmatic response: we probably shouldn't saddle the state, that's already struggling to fund it's state budget, with more entitlement expenses.

Ideological response: this is why the government shouldn't be in the business of healthcare to begin with. Yet, this stance doesn't make privatized health insurance any better. As in, how does it make sense that the most standard way people get insurance now is through their employer?

The Continuing Fight About Gay Rights

Should the state sanction gay marriage? Does the state have an economic (forget theological) stake at preserving and providing incentive for traditional marriage? And probing even further: does the church have a say in whether it gets to ordain gay pastors, priests, and bishops? Forget the first two questions, how come Christians can't agree on this last question? Time has an article covering this phenomenon with the following biased comments:

Mohler [President of Southern Baptist Seminary] sees the true church as a body comprised of believers who refuse to give ground on gay marriage. So does the Catholic Church, which has shown no willingness to change its own teachings, rooted as they often are in centuries of tradition...

Interesting. The Bible mentions homosexuality or homosexual acts 7 times and each time is mentioned negatively. Despite how some egregious errors in biblical interpretation can occur by pro gay-rights "theologians," an obvious contextual reading of any of these passages places homosexual acts in a negative light. But forget that; the Catholic church holds their beliefs based on crusty, old tradition apparently. They have no legitimate reason to believe what they believe in the tenets of their faith. After all, Christians disagree on this issue (please understand my sarcasm here). And then there's this quote:

So while both men [Mohler and Roman Catholic Joseph E. Kurtz] are calling for courage and compassion among their flocks, it's not clear yet whether their message that homosexuals are sinners by definition is resonating beyond their staunchest supporters.

Apparently the staunch supporters are people who actually read the Bible. I know many people claim the label "Christian," but many don't actually know, believe, or practice the tenets of the faith. I suppose the media cannot really parse that difference but I sure can. The problem with this issue involves a certain form of idolatry- one Herbert Schlossberg calls the idol of history. Allow me to elaborate:

I was watching an old episode of Law and Order:SVU last night, and the victim happened to be a homosexual person who was the son of a "bigoted" pastor, or so the show portrayed. When discussing the "unfortunate" views of the pastor, the detectives lamented his "bigotry" and his "unenlightened" position. For instance, "How could anyone in this day and age believe that someone can choose their sexual orientation?" The detective's assumption, like many today, assume that whatever is, is right. This is the idol of history. Now I won't challenge (for the time being) whether someone chooses sexual orientation or not. There's enough research to suggest a complicated answer there. But what does NOT naturally follow is that something is right whether or not someone chooses it.

I hesitate to use outlandish examples with this sensitive issue, so let me say on the front end that I'm not comparing homosexuality to any of the "sins" to be mentioned next. But, a sociopath often has a strong disposition to kill, but that doesn't make it right. "But that's the way he is," I hear the detective arguing. Or how about an alcoholic- they don't have a choice whether they'd like and be addicted to alcohol, they only have the choice whether they drink or not. Predisposition to alcohol doesn't make alcoholism right. And so the logical fallacy follows with homosexuality: even if someone had no choice of sexual orientation, it does not logically follow that it is right. I know there's a bigger problem to address then- the problem of evil. Why would God make them that way? Why would God make people with dispositions to something wrong?

The same way that we're all predisposed to do wrong, think selfishly, and act selfishly. We all have the mark of sin as a stain on our humanity. Christians call this original sin, and it affects every human.

From a human perspective, I lament the misunderstanding and fear that many Christians have for homosexuals. Indeed, the issue is vastly more complex than a simple "you are good" or "you are evil." But even in a loving, pastoral response to homosexual people, we should not fall prey to the idol of historicism. Whatever is, is not necessarily right. History is not the final adjudicator of right and wrong. God is. His moral law is. And Biblical Christians should stand up to this flagrant abuse of logic and the Bible in the church. Our public response in the political world is another issue. We have to handle our own house in a different way.

More From Schlossberg

Consider this truth in the American experience:

It has often been said that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and that, as the disparity increases, the poor will rise against the rich in a revolution. The old socialist idea was that the great dissatisfaction of the poor masses could only be assuaged by a socialist redistribution of wealth. The dissatisfactions, however, have grown with the increase of equality, exactly the opposite of those expectations. This is what Alexis de Tocqueville predicted when he visited the United States 150 years ago... As society erases social distinctions and moves toward a leveling of income differentials, the demand for equality is not satisfied, but intensified. People do not envy Rockefeller his millions as much as thye envy their neighbor a ten percent differential in income. All inequalities, monetary or otherwise, are more galling to the envious when they are nearby, when the advantage is held by those whom one knows and when it is seen daily. The leveling movement has nothing to do with justice, because its impulse is not to raise those who are down but to topple those
who are up....

Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction

I wonder how much this sentiment, seeped into the American consciousness as it is, affects our public policy? When people start to claim that healthcare, unemployment benefits, and retirement from the government are rights, this social phenomenon has infected us.

Quote of the Day

When you read the following quote, I want you to think of politicians- Democrats, Republicans, Independents- who call themselves pragmatists.

In practice, the hallmark of the humanist ethic is pragmatism. The fact that politicians describe themselves as pragmatic in order to induce people to vote for them is a telling indication of the values of our society. The pragmatic politician portrays himself as a realist who looks at the facts to tell him what to do rather than seeking a wise course of action in theory, in principle, or in ideology. All of that is illusory. Facts never told anyone what to do. Facts are always interpreted according to principles and values, and the pragmatist hides his, possibly even from himself. The ethical result of this is worse than the means being justified by the end, because the pragmatist explicitly elevates means over ends; the means justify themselves. And the values remain hidden because to speak of them, except in the most general and meaningless sense, is to lose one's credentials as a pragmatist.

Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, 1990

I suppose one either believes that there's objective morality beneath the law or it is constructed by humans without an objective morality. I suppose that objective morality is above the pragmatist's pay grade.

Jesus was and is real, and really rose from the dead

Stephen Colbert has a little fun with liberal scholar Bart Ehrman. Of course, many of Ehrman's claims are flat-out wrong, and nothing he posits in the interview constitutes any new thoughts in liberal scholarship (so why another book?). But watch the clip. Even though it's humor, Colbert makes seem decent points at times.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington deals with the claims on his blog:

Actually Bart is dead wrong about early Christology, and I think he even knows it. Its pretty hard to miss Phil. 2.5-11, written before any Gospel probably. There it is said not only that Christ is "in very nature God" even before he takes on human form, but then on top of that Paul quotes and applies Isaiah to Christ after the ascension saying he has the name above all names, which very clearly in Isaiah is the name of God. The transfer of the LXX name for God 'kyrios' to Christ is clearly enough a statement about his divinity. In addition to which in Romans 9.5 Christ is called "God above all blessed forever".

Furthermore, the Synoptic Gospels most certainly do view Christ as divine. This is why he is portrayed as Immanuel for example in Matthew's Gospel, or as the human and also divine Son of Man of Daniel 7 fame who came from heaven to judge the world and will rule in a kingdom for ever (see Mk. 14.62).

Ehrman's retro arguments about such things don't even convince most liberal scholars these days, they just say that Paul was divinizing Jesus because they know he had an exalted view of Christ.

As for Colbert, he is a devout Catholic who teaches Sunday school, and is not much interested in making fun of any orthodox Christians.

The Simple Irony of Darwinism

I have a thought experiment, and it involves the philosophy of science:

What if we had started out as Darwinists in Western history? What if humans had always believed that chance and various unpredictable situations would have given us everything we could possibly know?

The irony is this: if we had started out as Darwinists, we likely wouldn't have science. The fundamental assumptions of science is that the universe is orderly, rational, and measurable. Fundamentally, if one had started as a Darwinist without the prior influence of other worldviews that maintain orderliness and rationality, it's doubtful that that person would have ever thought to test the world or its biological underpinnings, because it all happened by chance anyhow. Darwinism implodes by its own philosophy.

What would it have mattered if the universe was measurable? Nobody would have done it. I think many people forget that modern science had it's birth in a Christian worldview. We believe in a God who has ordered the universe, making himself knowable through order, rationality, and measurability.

White House God-Squad

Here is the list of Obama's religious counsel called the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Any names that intrigue you? Make you outraged? Make you curious?

Time's brief take on it is interesting. For liberals that never want a litmus test, not wanting Tony Dungy on the counsel is petty. Read the article for more.

Littleton Home-Cooking

I have a small, personal stake in the Columbine High School community. It's small, mind you. I can't claim to have been here when it happened, I can't claim to know many teachers and administrators, and I can't claim to speak for the community. But my wife works with the Columbine community, and she's gotten to know some of the stories over the past several years. By extension to my wife, I have a small, personal stake. I do know some teachers minimally. I have been to the memorial and read through the wall and the bio's a half-dozen times. I have a small, small stake. It is with that small stake that I proceed.

Somehow, someway, Columbine has etched itself into the collective, national consciousness. There's been dozens of other school shootings in other places. Other horrible terrorist acts have been done to Americans. But Columbine still sticks out. It remains with us.

Every time there's a school shooting, Columbine is referenced in local papers and on local TV. When the Columbine memorial opened up over 2 years ago, it made national news. Michael Moore did a movie with Columbine in the title to talk about guns and American culture. When the authorities released the perpetrators diaries, it made national news. Columbine stands as the memorial, the altar if you will, of all school shootings. Maybe because there were two shooters and not just one. Maybe because the perpetrators themselves were kids. Maybe because it was the first of its kind on such a large scale. I don't really know.

And so I take intrigue whenever someone has a new take, a new spin, or new news about that fateful event. The most recent is a fairly comprehensive book titled simply, Columbine by Dave Cullen. Lev Grossman of Time magazine wrote a review. Grossman's penetrating questions about the nature of Cullen's book:

Should this story be told at all? There's an element of sick, voyeuristic fascination to it--we don't need an exercise in disaster porn. But Columbine is a necessary book. Narrating an event is a way to tame it, to give it a meaning, and the Columbine massacre is an aggressively, catastrophically meaningless event, a rip in the smooth fabric of an otherwise comprehensible world. It's a vacuum that urgently demands to be filled.

The question is, Who gets to fill it?...

These are interesting questions indeed. I just have a couple of thoughts about taming this narrative. I will list them simply and without substantive argument. I'm not sure Harris and Klebold's diaries and video logs should have ever been made public. I'm not so sure Time should contain a picture of Harris and Klebold in the school cafeteria in their article (as it pictures them minutes before their deaths). I'm not so sure anyone outside this community (especially the teachers and administrators that are still here 10 years later) should get to comment on the human nature of Harris and Klebold. But I suppose you can decide for yourself.

The principal of Columbine has said that as long as he is principal that Columbine will take April 20 as a no-school day. That day is quickly approaching. It's hard to believe it's been ten years. Seems like just yesterday....

Immigration in Colorado

Writers' Note: Lest any readers of this blog think I tow some sort of Republican party line, I hope this post dispels that kind of thinking. I strongly hold pro-life positions and think Democrats make a muck of it. But I don't tow a party line. Remember that this blog seeks to think in a redemptive way about the news regarding both cultural and political issues. With that warning, I proceed.

The Colorado Senate is debating a bill that would give in-state tuition to children of undocumented immigrants. There has been a lot of smoke and fire around this issue, to be sure. Tom Tancredo, who campaigned for President in the Republican primary last year, has consistently and aggressively championed legislation against illegal immigration in all its forms. He wrote an op-ed piece against this legislation a few weeks ago in the Denver Post. Tancredo notes:

Proponents say "it won't cost taxpayers anything" to "equalize tuition rates." That is clearly not the case.

Yet Tancredo goes to no lengths to prove this. Under normal persuasive writing standards, when you say "clearly," you ought to support that claim with evidence. Read the article, Tancredo doesn't do it. Then he says later:

It is indeed a tragedy that thousands of adults chose to come to Colorado unlawfully and bring their children with them. They are to blame for their children's unfortunate circumstance, not the citizens and taxpayers of Colorado.

But Tancredo has failed to show why taxpayers will take the brunt of it. The state government barely funds state schools as it is. How are taxpayers more harmed? Tancredo doesn't say, and I'm not sure he has a strong case even if he did. But all this discussion of economics confuses the issue that I want to focus on.

The Bible focuses on immigrants. God's people experienced such movement of place that God cares seems to give a little extra special care to those immigrants.

Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. Exodus 22:21

Think about it: Abraham, Jacob, all the Israelites out of Egypt, Ruth, all the Jews following exile, Jesus, and the missionary apostles were all foreigners in strange lands at some point in their lives. It matters to God how we treat foreigners in our land. Does this affect our legislation? I think it does. And as a Christian, this conversation should precede any discussion of economics, feasibility to health care, or legality.

Many appeal to Romans 13 to state that people should obey the government. But this is asinine. We never obey the civil authorities above God's authority. And when the civil authorities contradict God's authority, Christians have an obligation to obey God.

How does that affect the immigration issue? Well, the federal policies on immigration are a mess. They are contradictory, confusing, and ill-kept. It's almost impossible to rely on the federal government for speedy paperwork. Until the federal government gets its act together (which may never happen on this issue), then our legislation at a minimum shouldn't penalize undocumented people that already live in the U.S. One may disagree with the tuition bill because it offers a benefit that shouldn't be given, but I think all Christians should disagree with hateful legislation the rebounds the other way.

For a good primer on this subject from a Christian perspective, read Christians at the Border by Daniel Carroll.

Redemptive Angle Note

A few posts ago, I forecasted part 3 of my analysis of Obama's style. I'm waiting until his trip in Europe is done until I finish thinking through this issue. Suffice to say, the standard conservatives are railing against Obama's multilateralism, pragmatism, and willingness to talk to anyone. The standard liberals hate Obama's aggressive stance towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. I hope to penetrate beyond those petty views. But here's a little peak: I think Obama's Presidency holds the most promise in foreign policy.

An Abortion Satire

Writer's Note: I do not actually believe the following positions below; they are merely an attempt to show the absurdity of many pro-choice slogans, which aren't in fact real arguments. One can substitute any number of human rights offenses that restrain personal liberty in for "abortion" and "unborn people," but I have chosen "slavery" and "slaves," respectively.

1) Don't like a slave, don't have one.

2) Slavery is wrong, but the government shouldn't restrict it (an argument actually made by Stephen Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates).

3) Slavery is a family decision, and the government shouldn't intrude on a private decision (a similar argument made by Obama).

4) Making slavery illegal would create an unsafe black market for slaves.

5) Don't impose your religious views about slavery on the rest of us.

6) Slaves aren't real people, so it doesn't matter what we do with them (see the 3/5 clause of the original Constitution).

7) If Christians want to free slaves, then they should be the ones caring for them (not an ill-founded argument, but it confuses terms-- slavery is still wrong regardless of the potential outcomes).

8) Making slavery illegal would bankrupt the healthcare system. Keeping it legal reduces cost (Nancy Pelosi).



Absurd, absurd, absurd.