Theological Pietism Part 1: A Lesson from History

Posted on October 31, 2013 by Matt

As the name of this blog implies, I believe reformation is a continuing task in the Church. As a Lutheran, this is obvious when I look at the Church as a whole, for from the Lutheran perspective, most Christians depart from Christ’s teaching in some manner or another. However, reformation is a continuing task within my own confession as well for a variety of reasons—after all, the inventiveness of sinful man seems boundless. I’d therefore like to celebrate this Reformation Day by addressing one such issue. I’ve selected this one from among the many specifically because I have not seen it addressed elsewhere to my satisfaction. For this same reason, I’m going to take my time and address the subject across multiple posts/days, beginning with an historical analogy. Historians will no doubt find it oversimplified (and no doubt it is), but I believe it accurately illustrates a perennial human failing:

In the 4th century, a great controversy was caused in the Eastern church by an Alexandrian pastor named Arius. He was found to be teaching that Jesus Christ was not God so much as he was “God.” You see, Arius taught that the Son was a creature—a mere creation of the Father—not God Himself. And though Arius and his followers were content to assign Jesus the label of “God ” on various pretexts (such as his adoption by the Father or his primacy as the first thing the Father ever created), they were quite clear that there was a time when the Son was not, and they would not confess that Christ is “one substance with the Father” as true Christians still do to this day.

This should have been a local controversy. His false teachings were discovered by the Egyptian bishops, Arius was deposed by them, and that should have been that. However, after these events, Arius fled to a bishop named Eusebius in Nicomedia (Turkey before the arrival of the Turks), and was welcomed by him. From there, Arianism was allowed to spread to become a massive controversy that engulfed the entire Eastern Church and which resulted in and persisted for decades even after the Council of Nicea. Why was Arius welcomed? Didn’t Eusebius know that he was teaching that Christ was not God? Not so much. Arius was, after all, quite willing to call Jesus “God,” and Eusebius was far more interested in the fact that Arius strongly opposed the last great heresy: Sabellianism.

Sabellius was a modalist; he falsely taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were simply different masks (or modes) under which humanity encountered God. For Sabellius, God was not three distinct persons; the same Person simply had three different temporary appearances during different periods of history. Arius’ own teaching was, ironically, intended to combat this false teaching in the Church. For while Sabellius removed any real distinction between the Father and the Son, Arius emphasized that distinction to such an extent that it became an essential division. So Arius was embraced as a zealous defender of sound doctrine. And if his rhetoric was a little extreme on the distinction between the Father and the Son, well, that just went to show how zealously anti-Sabellian he really was. The error of the Eusebians wasn’t that they really believed Arianism (though some of them might have); it was that they were entirely willing to sound like they did. Unlike Arius, the error of the Eusebians was primarily one of practice rather than doctrine.

There is a lesson to be learned from history. It is a perennial human failing to avoid one error so strenuously that one falls headlong into an opposite error. And this is hardly the only time such a thing happened in Church history. Sabellianism itself was an overreaction to Marcionism which separated the Son and the Father by turning the Father into a villain who tortured mankind by imprisoning them in this material world and the Son into the one who would free us from evil matter. Eutychianism, which collapsed the two natures of Christ (100% God & 100% Man) into some kind of human/divine hybrid was a reaction to Nestorianism, which, for all intents and purposes, separated Christ’s two natures into two different people.

Opposing false doctrine is a perpetual obligation of the Church. Christ warned us time and again against false teachers and so instructed us to teach everything that He taught. There is the temptation, however, to perceive this perpetual obligation as a series of humps to get over rather than the typical state of the Church as it weathers assaults by the Devil and the world. When we succumb to this temptation, we focus all of our attention on the last great error so that we can finally get back to ‘normal.’ And so, rather than doing what Paul instructed and teaching the whole counsel of God, we pick and choose those parts of God’s word which most strongly oppose the error of the day while sidelining those parts which might be perceived as supporting that error. The great irony is that this neglect of Paul’s instruction gives birth to new and/or different errors even as it opposed the errors of which we are more aware. It means taking parts of God’s Word for granted, and, as we all know, things taken for granted quickly turn into things forgotten.

I bring this up because I believe that many confessional Lutherans are currently drifting into this failing even as they steadfastly oppose error.

One of the great errors of our day is a modern form of moralistic works-righteousness that manifests itself differently as it emerges in different sub-cultures in the Christian world. In liberal churches, Christianity is perceived as a means of social transformation by which injustice and oppression can be eliminated from human society. One is considered to be more Christian as one becomes more civic-minded. In conservative evangelicalism, the individual is given focus and Christianity is seen as a means of personal transformation by which sin can be excluded and virtues instilled. One is considered to be more Christian as one becomes more moral. Then there is the so-called emergent church (which is increasingly turning into a redux of theological liberalism.) They see Christianity as a means of cohesion within a community and one is considered to be more Christian by how well one welcomes and gets along with others. Finally, among many of the poorly catechized youth, the typical belief is often described as “moralistic therapeutic deism” according to which God is a distant ideal that makes us behave in ways that make us feel better about ourselves. There are many other examples, but these few should serve to illustrate this almost ubiquitous failure to teach what accords with sound doctrine and to focus on what we do to the exclusion of what Christ has done for us.

These errors are all rightly opposed, for Christ sets us free from the accusations and demands of the Law and our works have no place in our justification.  We do not need to be cleaned up; we need to die and be raised up.  We are not more Christian by being good people (whatever the specific rubric); we are more Christian by receiving God’s grace in Word and Sacrament.

But how do we practice our opposition? Earlier this year, there was a big discussion about sanctification going on in Lutheran circles as many pastors and laypeople become cognizant of a certain stiltedness in our rhetoric. We are, to be frank, quick to condemn any kind of ethical instruction, suspicious of any imperatives, and wary whenever the subject of sanctification is broached—particularly if mention is made of an expected change in behavior as we do better over time.

Ultimately, though, our doctrine of sanctification is not really what the discussion is about—our confessions say what they say concerning sanctification, and that’s that. When pressed, most people on all sides of the discussion ultimately agree on this. However, this does not mean there is no object of discussion. As the example of Eusebius shows us, there are errors of practice as well as errors of doctrine, and we Lutherans must ask ourselves not only what teachings we believe in our hearts but what teachings actually make it through our lips to be delivered to others. What do we sound like?  Why do we have to be pressed to deliver the whole story?

I contend that the true topic of the ongoing discussion is a practical error that is creeping into Confessional Lutheranism through the way we oppose the doctrinal errors of our day—a way that 1) neglects Biblical teachings that could be easily misconstrued as teaching moralistic works-righteousness and 2) creates non-Biblical rules that reinforce this neglect.

I have chosen to refer to this practical error as theological pietism.

Stay tuned for Part 2:  What is Theological Pietism?

Posted in Lutheranism, Sanctification, Theological Pietism | 1 Comment

A Crime Against Women

Posted on October 16, 2013 by Matt

…and against men, but since nobody is terribly concerned about them, we’ll set that aspect aside for the sake of rhetoric.

Being that October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, Facebook has been awash with links to articles on the subject, and many of these are simply terrible. Now, just to be clear up front: domestic violence is bad, mmm’kay. Nobody’s claiming otherwise. However, many of the ways of combatting it that are being trumpeted this month are entirely counter-productive (and utterly unjust towards men, but again, nobody is terribly concerned about them.)

The tactics that I see most often are attempts to expand the scope of how we understand abuse in order to extend protection to more women. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that motivation. However, many of these expansions are gross exaggerations that actually trivialize domestic abuse in the name of combatting it. Take this guide to discerning emotional abuse, for example:

When people think of domestic abuse, they often picture battered women who have been physically assaulted. But not all abusive relationships involve violence. Just because you’re not battered and bruised doesn’t mean you’re not being abused. Many men and women suffer from emotional abuse, which is no less destructive. Unfortunately, emotional abuse is often minimized or overlooked—even by the person being abused.

The aim of emotional abuse is to chip away at your feelings of self-worth and independence. If you’re the victim of emotional abuse, you may feel that there is no way out of the relationship or that without your abusive partner you have nothing.

Emotional abuse includes verbal abuse such as yelling, name-calling, blaming, and shaming. Isolation, intimidation, and controlling behavior also fall under emotional abuse. Additionally, abusers who use emotional or psychological abuse often throw in threats of physical violence or other repercussions if you don’t do what they want.

Now take a moment to really think about some of the criteria that’s being offered up here. Blaming: “I can’t believe you forgot to mail in the payment for the credit card bill.” Simple statements like this now amount to domestic abuse. Oh, and if you put an exclamation point on the end, it’s now doubly abusive because yelling is also on the list. There’s also shaming: “Are you really going to wear a brown belt with black pants?” Statements like this also fall under the vague heading of “controlling behavior,” seeing as how it’s clearly intended bring about behavioral change and prevent self-expression. Granted, this may not be model behavior in many cases, but abuse? Really? With criteria like this, literally every relationship that has lasted more than a few months is categorized as abusive.

If one goes a little further in the guide, one will encounter another subtle form of emotional abuse: “economic abuse.” The criteria here aren’t even coherent. One bullet point calls a partner abusive for “withholding money” while another does so for “taking your money.” That’s right, it’s abusive for your partner to withhold money and also abusive of them to prevent you from withholding money. But then, that must mean that you’re abusing them right back as long as any money either does or doesn’t change hands. Do the two abuses cancel each other out, or should both partners be locked up?

It’s also worth mentioning that one of the key touch-stones for a healthy relationship that the guide offers up is “independence.” Far from being key, independence isn’t even terribly desirable within marriage. When a man and a woman become one flesh, independence flies out the window. It’s like the intestine trying to be independent of the stomach: if either one tries to be self-sufficient at digesting and excluding the other from the process, both will come to harm.

The only service such a list provides is easy entry into the cult of victimhood and the sense of entitlement it provides at the expense of one’s spouse. This does not help women (or men, but who cares). This merely sends them on relational witch-hunts whenever conflict arises. What could be more destructive to marital happiness? Furthermore, it denegrates victims of real abuse. If all domestic abuse amounts to is some yelling and name-calling, how long until people start concluding that “domestic abuse” is not a big deal and its victims are unworthy of our sympathy? Worst of all, it provokes a paranoia that sees abuse hiding behind every bush and a hysteria that wants to stop it at any cost.

The further this kind of poisonous philosophy spreads into our social institutions, the more harm it causes. No discussion of domestic violence awareness would be complete without noting the ways in which these stilted approaches to the subject make their way into the legal system. Consider the tragic case of Joseph Kerr, a victim of real abuse.

She kicked my head into the solid wood base. I blacked out, came to, stood up, bleeding. My daughter was screaming, “Stop hurting daddy!”

It was over. We were over. I headed out the door to the police and then the hospital. My daughter stopped me. “Daddy, you need to go to a doctor, here take this,” she handed me a bandage. “I love you” was the last thing I said to her. It’s been almost a month.

I walked into the police station falling apart. What happened? What will I do next? What happens on Monday? What happens for the rest of my life? How will I explain what just happened to my kids? My head was spinning as much from the injury as from the complete collapse of my home life. I knew the officer, I had came by the night before suspecting that my wife was leaving with the kids, he assumed why I was crying, “hey man, it’s alright, you knew this was going to happen….”

I pulled off my sunglasses and revealed my bloody face. “Whoa, what the hell happened?”

I started piecing together what happened. The argument, her throwing the breakfast I was making for the kids on the ground, grabbing my laptop, the stairs, my kids, screaming. I pulled out the Band-Aid and broke down again.

“Is she hurt? Did you hit her…?” No. Never. I waited.

“We’re sending a car over there to talk to her.” I waited some more.

“You wife is telling a bit of a different story, as happens a lot in these situations, she says you threatened her.”

“We’re going to take you into custody now.”

“Stand up and put your hands behind your back.”

An hour later I was handcuffed to a hospital bed waiting for CAT scan results to know if my head was bleeding. I looked at the officer.

“What do you do when a woman hits you?”

“I don’t know what to tell you, man” he confided. “We don’t like doing these things, but our hands are tied.”

This is where domestic violence hysteria leads. Joseph Kerr was treated as a criminal because “the most telling sign [of abuse] is fear of your partner” and his wife said she was afraid. She might even have been telling the truth. With only nonsensical criteria to identify abusers, the laws that were intended to halt abuse are turned against the victims of abuse. When everyone qualifies as guilty, it is only the circunstantial nuances of the system that determine which of the guilty get punished.

Now, it’s true that Joseph Kerr was a man, and that nobody is terribly concerned about men. However, this situation is going to turn very ugly for women as well. As Vox Day points out on one of his blogs, this kind of legal regime creates a no-win scenario for many people, and a no-win scenario is ultimately a carte blanche. Once a person really realizes that he has nothing to lose, there are far fewer limitations on his options. Vox, for example, answers Joseph’s question about what to do when a woman hits you thusly:

If a woman physically attacks you in a manner that indicates her serious intent to harm you, then you beat the living shit out of her. Beat her so badly, so painfully, that she fears for her life. Afterwards, calmly explain to her that if she calls the police or tries to press charges after she attacked you and forced you to defend yourself, you’ll simply do your 30 days or whatever and then you’ll come back and do it again. Only this time, you won’t be merely defending yourself. You’ll be looking for payback, and payback is a serious bitch. And remind her that the police won’t be there until after the fact.

This solution is the quintessential picture of real domestic abuse. I’m certainly not convinced that this is a moral solution, but it’s hard to deny that it’s an extremely practical one. And the more severe the social and legal consequences a woman is able to bring against a man for telling her that if she doesn’t stop running up the credit card then he’ll cut it up (“economic abuse” according to the guide), the more incentive he’ll have to turn to the brutally violent solution. The absurd exaggerations of the scope of abuse that are being thrown about to prevent domestic violence are actually creating incentives to engage in the worst kind of domestic violence.

This irresponsibility of the domestic violence industry has created a situation that is now encouraging the very kind of behavior they’re ostensibly fighting against. If you want to truly help advance the cause of women this October, stop promoting the hysteria and feeding the paranoia. Take the domestic violence industry to task instead of promoting it. And who knows, you might even help some other victims you never knew existed.

Posted in Feminism, Politics | 1 Comment

No Need to Choose Between Doctrine and Love

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Matt

“Doctrine divides” became a popular refrain in Theological Liberalism, and its popularity continues as this heresy is rebranded as the “Emergent Church.” The idea is basically that when people believe different things about the world, it gets in the way of fellowship and creates a division between them. This is true after a fashion. However, being that I am a Christian rather than a Theological Liberal, I am compelled to put it differently: When a person disbelieves the truth, it creates a division between him and those who do believe the truth. This more precise formulation makes it clear that doctrine as such does not divide. Only false doctrine divides. Unfortunately, “doctrine divides” is itself a false doctrine—a teaching that contradicts what Christ taught on the subject.

But what is the appeal of such a doctrine? What does it bring to the table besides alliteration? Usually, the division brought about by doctrine is seen as inhibiting love. For some people, this is simply because division gets in the way of banding together to help the less fortunate (this was a big thrust of Theological Liberalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.) However, as modernism gives way to postmodernism and Theological Liberalism becomes less about the benevolent plans of a centralized organization and more about subjective hyper-individualistic experience, doctrine’s supposed infringement upon love takes a different form. It has become essential rather than circumstantial. Division doesn’t just inhibit organized efforts to love, but is increasingly seen as being, itself, unloving.

Many people have taken up the idea that unconditional love means unconditional acceptance. Accordingly, doctrine and its standards of truth and falsehood inhibit acceptance and therefore love. They then conclude that doctrine is unimportant at best and hurtful at worst. This is reasonable in its own way. It follows a simple modus ponens:

1) If absolute love means absolute acceptance, then doctrine is harmful.
2) Absolute love does mean absolute acceptance.
3) Therefore doctrine is harmful.

It’s important to remember, however, that one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens. It’s just as logical to say:

1) If unconditional love means unconditional acceptance, then doctrine is harmful.
2) Doctrine is not harmful.
3) Therefore unconditional love does not mean unconditional acceptance.

So how do we choose between these two equally logical arguments? Well, we decide which of the conflicting premises is better supported. It’s “Doctrine is not harmful” vs “Absolute love means absolute acceptance.”

If one were to consult the Bible on the subject, it would be an open-and-shut case. Jesus couldn’t have been clearer about the danger of false teachers and the necessity of his Church teaching what he himself taught. Of course, if someone is already shying away from doctrine, he probably doesn’t particularly care what the Bible says on the subject. Thankfully, our reason comes to the same conclusion. As I indicated at the beginning of this post, “doctrine divides” is, itself, a doctrine. After all, a doctrine is nothing more than “a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated.” So even the “doctrine divides” crowd recognizes the beneficial importance of doctrine—they just pursue it absentmindedly instead of deliberately, and it shows in the quality of what they produce. Reason’s verdict, it seems, is just as open-and-shut as Scripture’s.

But what shall we make of the idea that absolute love means absolute acceptance? Once again, a Biblical consultation makes the answer very plain. Scripture is all about God’s perfect love for humanity, but it’s very clear that God does not accept every behavior, every belief, or even every person. Jesus was abundantly clear about narrow roads leading to Life and broad paths leading to Hell. But again, for those who disregard Scripture, reason still has something to say.

Absolute love does not mean absolute acceptance for a very simple reason: it is better to give than to receive. This is a Biblical principle, but its current popularity is generally due to the way it coincides with the imagination of the post-Christian West. Theological Liberals generally sees the Bible as a loose collection of documents written by a diverse crowd among whom the only real connection is an attempt to make sense of their various religious experiences. It can therefore be disregarded whenever our own religious experiences say “no” but held onto whenever the two coincide. For most, the two do coincide in the case of “it is better to give than to receive.”

So how does this apply to love and acceptance? Acceptance is all about receipt. Love, on the other hand, is all about giving. Accordingly, an all-loving God gives all of Himself to the world. However, this does not mean he must accept that which stands in the way of that giving. Sinful humanity is opposed to God; faithlessness rejects His gifts. As a result, those who do not believe remain condemned. This is not due to any deficiency in God’s love. It is only due to our own rejection of what was given.

As C.S. Lewis noted, when most people say “God is love,” they really mean “Love is god.” Despite how similar they sound, there is a world of difference. According to the former, there is a wonderful thing called love. We see glimmers of it in our lives, but as through a mirror dimly. We do not practice or recognize love as we should. In God, however, we encounter love as it truly is because God is love. On the other hand, when we mean “Love is god,” we still notice that there is a wonderful thing called love that we see glimmers of in our lives. However, we then elevate this thing from our own experience above all others and treat it as a god.

When we take this route, we make an idol of our own pitiful efforts at love and end up with all sorts of erroneous ideas about God because we are building Him in our own image. If we then take Biblical doctrine and consider it unloving, the only standard we are comparing it to is our own invention. At this point, our complaints about God and His teachings amount to nothing more than, “these teachings must not be God’s, because if I were God, I would teach something different.” It is hard to overstate how impoverished this experiential view of love is. It is far better to receive our ideas about love from the doctrines of One who is, Himself, Love than to box Him in by our own misconceived doctrines.

Posted in Apologetics, Ethics, Theological Liberalism, Theology, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Cons of College

Posted on September 18, 2013 by Matt

There was a great disturbance on Facebook last week when thousands of feminists suddenly cried out in terror, but were anything but silent. They were responding to a blog post (originally) called 6 Reasons to NOT Send Your Daughter to College. The charges were predictable (“misogynistic,” “barefoot and pregnant,” “oppression,” etc.) and unfortunately, it seems that most people were too busy freaking out to actually consider anything it said. Accordingly, I’d like to do so here.

A few notes before we begin:

First, college is too often assumed to be essential to life—that it’s part of the way to become a good American or a even good human being. Too many people fail to ask whether they should attend, and simply go to rack up a debt they can never pay or discharge with nothing to show for it but a piece of paper, some fond memories, and rudimentary knowledge of a subject that seemed interesting to them when they started. Before embarking on any endeavor that could end that way, it would be wise to figure out the pros and cons. Middle-class Americans have been all about listing the pros of college for the last 50 years, but it seems most people are shocked by even the prospect that cons worth considering might exist. If one were to take “6 Reasons” as a list of reasons that a woman should never attend college, it would be rather dubious. However, if one takes them as entries in a much-needed list of cons, one is on much better footing. Whatever the author might have intended, that’s how I intend to take them.

Second, it’s a shame that this needs to be pointed out so often, but men and women are different in important ways. It is entirely appropriate and helpful for a young man and a young woman to have differences on their lists of pros and cons. There are certain vocations for which college is not all that helpful (and may even be detrimental at the same time). The two that top this list are wife and mother. While not all women are called to these responsibilities, very many are and exactly zero men are. These vocations have been looked own on quite a bit (especially wife) but they are among the few that are absolutely essential to the continuation of civilized humanity. Women who are not certain that they are not called to these vocations would do well to carefully consider the costs and benefits of college, and their list will look different than any man’s. Accordingly, it is pure foolishness to condemn the blog post as misogynistic and exclude it from conversation simply because it addressed daughters.

Now onto the list itself:

  1. “She will attract the wrong types of men.”
    I thought I knew where this one was going when I read the title; never have I been so wrong. Rather than warn against the various alpha-male bad boys that are likely to use and discard her, the author warns against gamma-male nice guys looking for a new mother figure to mooch off of. While it’s true that this too is the wrong type of man, I can’t agree that this is a significant concern. She may attract their attention, but it seems unlikely that they’ll attract hers unless they’re artists or musicians.Still, there are wrong types of men that will attract her attention in college, and she would need to be wary of them. This can be mitigated to a certain degree by deliberately distancing oneself from the wider campus culture, but it is a con worth addressing.

  2. “She will be in a near occasion of sin”
    We should flee temptation even if it alters our career-path? While the world may consider this to be madness, to the Christian, this should be an incredibly important point. Christians talk a good game about purity, but at the same time, we tend to think it legalistic to take precautions against it. We tell our kids not to have sex outside of marriage but think it’s A-OK for them to spend copious amounts of time secluded with an attractive member of the opposite sex in order to explore their mutual romantic feelings. This is no less true for college.College culture is incredibly unchaste and must be approached with extreme caution. Again, deliberately distancing oneself from the wider campus culture can be helpful (e.g., living off-campus with parents or relatives, maintaining regular involvement in church and family activities, etc.) But proximity is always dangerous, some level of it is unavoidable if she chooses to attend, and she will be told by nearly everyone she meets there (students, professors, and administrators alike) that she’s crippling herself by not diving right in.

  3. “She will not learn to be a wife and mother”
    This is certainly true, but the way its framed, it’s not terribly compelling. That’s not what anyone goes to college for. It’s true that career-preparation does have the side-effect of devaluing homemaking, but I think it’s an error to see college primarily as career-prep in the first place.I think the more pertinent questions on this subject are 1) to what extent going to college will interfere with the ordinary ways of learning how to be a wife and mother (i.e., instruction from trustworthy wives and mothers) and 2) whether a future wife and mother would gain enough from however many years of college to justify the cost—not just money, but also losing the most fertile years of her life.

  4. “The cost of a degree is becoming more difficult to recoup”
    This is a good thing for everyone considering college to know, and we don’t normally hear it. To the contrary, a few years back, I actually had a professor who argued that going into debt for a philosophy PhD was economically advantageous. It’s a good thing he didn’t teach economics. Year-by-year, the price of college is going up and the benefits are plummeting. But this is especially true for prospective wives and mothers. Student loan debt is entirely capable of forcing women away from their children and into jobs they hate.

  5. “You don’t have anything to prove to the world”
    Another good point on this one. Feminists stuck in an anti-1950’s mentality see college education as a kind of merit badge. A friend of mine who grew up in that generation but never attended college occasionally indicates that she sees herself as stupid because of it. To the contrary, however, she has been in adult Sunday School classes that I’ve taught, and she is definitely among the sharpest students I’ve had. It just goes to show that being well-educated is far more valuable than being well-degreed. Ironically enough, college is not always the best way to become educated.

  6. “It could be a near occasion of sin for the parents”
    This one mostly has to do with the cost of college encouraging contraception as a way to save money. Now, I’m not part of the Church of Rome, and I do not see contraception as inherently sinful. Nevertheless, I do think that most of the use to which contraception is put is sinful. To put it briefly, if we think that our daughters would be better off having her college education than having her brothers and sisters… what does that say about our priorities?

  7. “She will regret it”
    I think this is more of a summary of the rest, but it’s quite true that some women are becoming more comfortable with admitting that college was a mistake despite the stigma of doing so. It’s hard for modern youth to think of themselves as adults and horrifying to think of themselves as middle-aged or older (a side-effect of sequestering them with people their own age for decades on end). But these times do come, and contrary to popular belief, they do not signal that life is no longer worth living. It can’t hurt to remind them to think further ahead than a few years.

Posted in Chastity, Christian Youth, Culture, Feminism | Leave a comment

Children are not Postmodernists

Posted on September 16, 2013 by Matt

“Is my dead dog in heaven?

The question showed up on a list of seven difficult questions posed to the list’s author by her children, and the answer is instructive about the fate of postmodern views of religion when they encounter reality.  The author explains:

We do not subscribe to a specific religion in our house, but we have always believed in leaving room for our kids to find their own paths to God—or not. Our answers to God-related questions have always started with, “Many people believe…”

We figure whatever they grow up believing, as long as it doesn’t harm others, will be fine with us. And above all, we don’t want them thinking that any other people’s beliefs are wrong.

That seems to be the standard line for postmodern parents when religious questions come up, and I suppose it’s fair enough from that perspective. What’s curious, however, is how she answers the original question. The author goes on to explain that “If I’m being honest, my heart is committed to the fluffy-clouds, no-pain, no-sadness version of the afterlife. I imagine my Grandma Lu opening her arms to the soul of my 23 year-old nephew, who passed away three years ago. I imagine them both free of any sort of pain.” This too is standard fare for the spiritual but not religious—fluffy ideas that soothe the wounds we receive when we encounter the bleak reality of death. She continues to describe what her imagination shows her about other loved ones as well as her dog, and on that basis she tells her child, “Yes. I think so.”

It’s quite curious that she doesn’t give her child a list of the various things many people believe on the subject, as she ordinarily does. The other conspicuous absence is the principle that she had indicated was “above all:” that they never think any other beliefs are wrong. Instead, it’s a fairly clear “yes.” Sure, “I think so” is added as a postscript, but that’s an “I think so” from the greatest and most trustworthy authority any 5-year-old knows. Her knowingly make-believe narrative is delivered as more-or-less definitive.

Why the disconnect between postmodern ideals and the concreteness of the answer? I think it’s because even a 5-year-old can recognize the difference between true hope and false hope. If a parent were to answer her child with the bare observation that “some people believe your dog is in heaven,” nary a child would be satisfied. The game would also be up if she were to answer, “Yes, I think so. But never think anyone is wrong if they say your dog has ceased to exist and is simply rotting in the ground.” Even a child recognizes that both halves of a contradiction can’t be true. Even a child knows what it means if he must not think that a fact is wrong.

If even a 5-year-old could recognize the false hope in such answers about a dead pet, then what can these answers offer adults when applied to dead loved ones? If we want to know anything about the afterlife, our best resource is not our imagination; it’s the Man who actually died and actually came back to life a few days later.

Posted in Spiritual But Not Religious | Leave a comment

Jesus Needs to Man Up

Posted on September 11, 2013 by Matt

It seems that Family Life has taken it upon themselves to provide a list of 40 no-no’s to Christian husbands. Some of these new Thou Shalt Not’s are Biblical common sense; others are challenges that men should strive for; some of them are just plain bad advice; and some of them are lies that deny God’s Word. Topping the list of this last category is #27: “Stop telling your wife that she is supposed to ‘submit’ to you. If she is not following you, that means you’re not leading her as Christ loves the church.” Both the imperative in the first sentence and the declarative in the second are worth looking at.

First the imperative: “Stop telling your wife that she is supposed to ‘submit’ to you.” We’ll ignore the scare quotes around “submit” for the time-being.  On one hand, it is highly questionable how useful it is for a husband to tell his rebellious wife that God has instructed her to submit. After all, if he has to say it, then saying it won’t do any more good than any of the other things he’s said that she has disregarded. On top of that, issuing instructions that he knows will not be carried out tends to undermine his own authority over time. And yet, many modern American husbands are in a bit of predicament. They’re the last ones who should be speaking this particular word of God to their wives, and yet no one else is doing so—in many cases, it really has come down to the last person on the list.

The first people should be pastors, for it’s their vocation to preach the whole counsel of God. But how often has this particular counsel crossed the lips of an American pastor? When I studied at seminary, one of my classes spoke of God’s design for marriage, and these complimentary roles of husband and wife: to love sacrificially and to submit, respectively. The professor told us that we can stray from this design in two ways: a domineering and abusive husband on one hand and a rebellious wife on the other. The former error received a great deal of attention and condemnation; little was said about the latter, except an acknowledgment of its existence. I contacted the professor privately with my concerns, and, to his credit, he acknowledged the criticism and provided some balance in a subsequent class. Nevertheless, its discouraging to think that the whole counsel of God needs to be specifically asked for, and that many future pastors probably went through the lesson without anyone asking and therefore without balance.

Indeed, while I’ve never heard it from the pulpit at all, the only time I’ve heard it addressed in a Bible study that I wasn’t leading was to say that “yes, women should submit, but a man has to love as Christ loved” followed by about 10 minutes of instruction on how men should be doing this but are not—much of which amounted to “loving your wife means doing what she wants and never making her upset.” Of course, the practical effect of this approach is to completely invert submission. While this unbalanced treatment might be expected in a Middle-Eastern country in which headship is routinely abused, it is utterly irresponsible in the West where submission is generally seen as a dirty word and a wife’s rebellion is enshrined as both a right and a duty.

The second people who should deliver God’s instruction are the older women of the church, as Paul instructs in Titus 2:3-5. Here too, we encounter a problem. We have reached point in American history in which the older women are the very baby-boomers who sought to abandon this instruction en masse in the first place. It would seem that they have little knowledge of the subject and just as little inclination to train younger women. In many (perhaps most) cases, they are more likely to instruct women to follow their hearts and not be a doormat than to pass on anything God has actually instructed.

The next group on the list are simply brothers and sisters in the faith who admonish and encourage one another in their struggles to live their callings. Here, we do find the occasional voice reminding wives of their God-given responsibilities. Unfortunately, these voices are still fairly rare, socially distant, and are often drowned out by the multitude of voices attempting, one way or another, to redefine submission as some form of not-submission (e.g. mutual respect) and headship as some form of not-headship (e.g. “spiritual” headship.) Furthermore, these voices are easily dismissed because they are outside the American mainstream even in churches, and though they have ample Scriptural support, they are without any substantial pastoral support.

It is only then, when all these other avenues have failed, that we reach the husband—not because he has less responsibility for his wife’s instruction than any of these others or because his authority does not extend to delivering the message, but because his delivery of this message will always look self-serving, even when it is not. And yet, however it may come off, the husband is often the only one willing to deliver God’s message at all.

Now we return to the declarative part of this advice: “If she is not following you, that means you’re not leading her as Christ loves the church.” In other words, “Your wife will naturally submit to you as soon as you start doing an adequate job of leading her; It’s you’re fault that she’s not following God’s instruction. She is excused and you are to blame.” This sentiment seems to come up whenever the topic of submission is discussed. After all, when we are discussing God’s design in marriage, we are talking of something which He called “very good.” Naturally, we would expect it to be of mutual benefit to all involved, and while exploring why this is so is beyond the scope of this blog post, it most certainly is so. Accordingly, in the context of defending God’s Word on this subject, it is entirely appropriate to point out that women seek out this kind of male authority and naturally want to submit to it. For in this context, we mean “naturally” as “according to God’s design in creation.”

All of this changes, however, when the context becomes disobedience to God’s instructions. In this context, “naturally” means “according to our sinful nature,” for that is the only part of our nature that seeks to disregard God’s word. But in this context, submission to proper authority immediately ceases to be something that women do “naturally.” Consider ancient Israel. Was their constant rebellion against God’s authority because God wasn’t leading them well enough? When most of the 5000 men (along with the uncounted women and children among them) who Jesus miraculously fed abandoned him shortly thereafter (John 6), was this because Christ wasn’t loving them as well as Christ loved them? Perhaps the Pharisees’ problem was also that they were just insufficiently loved by Christ. I’ve heard the rhetorical question asked, “What woman wouldn’t want to submit to a man who loves her like Christ loved her?” But like so many rhetorical questions, this one has an unexpected answer: a sinful and rebellious woman. According to the same apostle who wrote about submission, this means all people, women included (Romans 3:10-18). But much of the American church refuses to call a spade a spade in the case of submission. Instead, they blame the husband and tell him to man up.

Paul did not add any conditionals to his instructions to husbands and wives in Ephesians. It’s not, “wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord if they love you as Christ loved the church,” nor is it the other way around for husbands. Indeed, the moment one makes these instructions conditional, they become utterly meaningless. There are no husbands who love their wives as well as Christ loves the church. There are no wives who submit to their husbands as the church ought to submit to Christ. If these are the conditions, then the instructions might as well have never been delivered. But they are delivered and are not conditional. Indeed, Peter makes this explicit in his first epistle when he instructs wives to be subject to their husbands even if they do not obey the word (1 Peter 3:1). The only thing conditions do is to send husbands and wives on a hunt for sin in their spouses in order to excuse their own disobedience.

The Church needs to stop being a party to this madness by returning to its responsibility to teach the whole counsel of God. The feminist rebellion of the last century has brought unprecedented death and misery, and it is shameful that churches have played along with it for so long.

Posted in Feminism, The Modern Church | 1 Comment

Religious Freedom in New Mexico

Posted on September 3, 2013 by Matt

Despite the frequent but dubious suggestions that forcing people to call gay relationships “marriage” won’t hurt anyone, it’s already coming at the expense of religious freedom. You’ve no doubt heard of the Christian photographers in New Mexico who refused to help commemorate a homosexual relationship and the court ruling that forces such participation in the future. I’ve heard a number of arguments from Christians indicating that this ruling does no real harm, and so I’d like to take a moment to offer some counter-arguments.

  1. This ruling does not violate anyone’s religious freedom because it only refers to business dealings in the public sphere. Business dealings in the public sphere are religiously neutral.

    Response: A plurality of gods always requires an additional god that is exalted higher than any of the others to help manage disputes among them. When religious freedom is framed as a pluralistic religious neutrality, it always results in the abolition of real religious freedom for whomever does not worship the chief god of the state. The reason for this is simple: religious neutrality is an incoherent concept.

    Whether you go with Luther, who described a “god” as where we ultimately look to for goodness, or Tillich on the liberal side who described a “god” as an ultimate concern that trumped all others, or even colloquial language in which we describe unwavering devotion to a regular task as “religious,” the common denominator is that a person’s god (whatever form that takes) reigns over everything else. To say to such a god that he may not tread on some particular ground is to deny its divinity altogether by subjecting it to something of even more importance—a higher god. When the state tries to create religion-free zones for the sake of peace, order, equality, or what-have-you, it is anything but religion-free; it is, in fact, imposing its own religion on those involved at the expense of theirs.

  2. This ruling does not violate anyone’s religious freedom because Christians approach financial dealings as businessmen and business-women rather than as Chrisitians.

    Response: It’s certainly true that we approach different tasks according to our different vocations. Accordingly, we approach our public business services as business people. The problem comes in with that additional phrase, “rather than as Christians,” which sets up a false dichotomy between the two. For while our vocations are distinct, they are also unified in the single person who possesses them both. In other words, we do not cease to be Christians as we carry out our other vocations.

    This should be obvious simply from all the instructions God gives Christians regarding financial transactions that would qualify as “public” in the way most people use the term. Even liberals love many of those verses. If we are supposed to conduct business “as business people rather than as Christians,” then these instructions would literally be nonsense.

  3. This ruling does not violate anyone’s religious freedom because Christianity does not actually prohibit Christians from assisting in the commemoration of wickedness.

    Response: Given that God has specifically warned against those who call evil good and good evil, I find this to be a dubious proposition. Still, the practicality of day-to-day life does introduce difficult questions of how exactly one should deal with these kinds of situations. I am open to different answers to these questions; I think it’s a matter best relegated to our own Biblically-informed good judgment. God hasn’t given us a precise flowchart for living, after all.

    However, it is precisely because I am open to different answers that I must contend for the freedoms of those who give either answer. After all, if I were to say what this argument seems to imply, “Christianity doesn’t forbid such actions, therefore requiring them doesn’t violate religious liberty,” all I would really be saying is “my own religious liberties aren’t at stake, therefore the government can violate away.” As they say, “I didn’t speak up when they came for ______…” I’m sure everyone knows how that story ends.

  4. It’s worth this violation of religious freedom so that you won’t be discriminated against yourself. For example, should an unbeliever be allowed to refuse to photograph a Christian wedding?

    Response: If we are to invoke the Golden Rule on this matter, I would have to conclude from its application that I would absolutely not want an unbeliever to be forced to help commemorate and celebrate a Christian marriage. What if this unbeliever is a feminist, as most Americans are? Do I really want some poor feminist photographer to be forced to help commemorate a woman promising (among other things) to submit to a man as unto God for the rest of her natural life? That’s a remarkably offensive notion to many people, and I have no wish to force their participation in it.

  5. It’s worth this violation of religious freedom because allowing business owners to refuse service in such cases would take us back to the days of Jim Crow.

    Response: Yes, racism is bad, mmm’kay? But some ways of combating it bear to high of a price tag. It is true that some civil rights legislation forbids businesses from turning away customers that belong to certain protected groups simply because they belong to said groups. I contend that the price of such laws is too high. Freedom of association and freedom of speech have already been sacrificed on their altar–now freedom of religion joins them. Perhaps it is time to find a way to help oppressed neighbors that doesn’t involve taking away the freedoms of all groups of Americans.

  6. Religious freedom must be violated in such cases because no one has the right to contribute to systematic discrimination against a particular group.

    Response: Once we strip away the overheated rhetoric, this argument is revealed to be a paper tiger. First, let’s get rid of “systematic.” Unless there is some parent company or secret Council of Bigots directing these photographers, then the word doesn’t apply. A moral opinion shared amongst a modest minority does not a “system” make. Second, “discrimination” has become a very loaded term, so let’s call it what it really is in this case: denial of services. Finally, there’s no need for this “group” stuff. Group identities of this kind are constantly shifting and used primarily for cheap and short-sighted political & rhetorical leverage, so I don’t think they belong in our laws.

    The only question that remains is whether American business-people should be allowed to deny services to people with whom they do not want to do business. It’s remarkably easy to answer “yes” to this.

  7. Religious freedom must be violated in order to guard against a Christian-dominated society in which some people will find no businesses that will be willing to serve them.

    Response: This is the kind of argument I would expect to hear from aliens visiting earth for the first time in centuries. Has it happened in the past? Yes. Does it look likely to happen in America anytime soon? No. Describing this possibility as merely “remote” would be far too generous. The Moral Majority is no longer in any way a majority, and it was secular humanist politicians who recently tried (and failed) to break an American business merely because they were tangentially associated with some other people who thought homosexuality was wrong. Contrary to the popular stereotype, it seems that liberals rather than conservatives are the ones stuck in the past—specifically, a largely mythologized 1950’s.

    There is a very remote possibility of such a thing occurring sometime in the future, but fearing this amounts to a phobia. Attempting to preclude every remote possibility of harm and inconvenience to anyone is synonymous with tyranny.

We must learn to understand religious liberty in a way that doesn’t rely on incoherent notions of religiously neutral social zones. Failing that, religious freedom will be lost altogether. As Christians continue to lose the freedoms we have historically enjoyed in America, we’ll need to decide whether to do homage to the government’s god in exchange for citizenship. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, those of us who thought that, in America, Christians had found our place in the world may realize that the world was simply finding its place in us.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Atheism Caused By Genetics

Posted on August 21, 2013 by Matt

I don’t like cilantro. It’s not merely a matter of personal taste, either. I’m one of about 20% of Americans who lack a certain enzyme in our saliva, the result of which is that the popular herb tastes like soap to us. I come across articles about this from time to time, and naturally, they’re always framed so that this particular distaste for cilantro comes off as an abnormality in need of an explanation. This is entirely appropriate: not because the enzyme is missing rather than present, but because having the enzyme is statistically normal. Most people have it, and only a modest minority lack it. If cilantro were generally disliked and about 20% of people had an unusual enzyme that made it taste good to them, these articles would, no doubt, be framed in the opposite way.

It’s curious what happens when the subject of these genetic explanation stories changes from herbs to religion. I came across yet another article the other day seeking to explain religious belief on the basis of genetics.

“Science has shown us clearly that one level of belief in God and overall spirituality is shaped not only by a mix of family environment and upbringing–which is not surprising–but also by our genes. Twin studies conducted around the world in the U.S., the Netherlands and Australia as well as ours in the U.K. show a 40 to 50 percent genetic component to belief in God.”

There’s not much I can say about the merits of the studies themselves since I didn’t read them. The article itself doesn’t make a good case, but that’s par-for-the-course in popular reporting of scientific studies. What struck me as curious about this article and the others like it is how they are almost always framed. It is always religious belief that is in need of an explanation; it is always that “faith is caused by our genes” or “belief in God has a genetic component.” I have yet to come across an article that says, “atheism is, in part, caused by one’s genetic background.”

The reason this is peculiar is that, statistically speaking, atheism is the abnormality. It’s always been a relatively small minority of humans who do not believe in any kind of God or gods. Nevertheless, I’ve never seen an article explain that, for example, one of the reasons atheists do not believe is that they lack a genetic background that enables them to experience spirituality. It would not only be just as fair to describe the results of this study in these terms, but it would be expected due to the weight of human experience falling mostly on the religious side. And yet, the usual framing is analogous to saying “although cilantro tastes like soap to many people, science has clearly shown us that some people possess an enzyme that makes its flavor pleasant.” Such a statement is just as accurate as the usual framing—but it would be strange to encounter it very often given the weight of human experience.

Whether belief or lack of belief in God has a genetic component is immaterial to whether these beliefs are true or false. Likewise, if these studies are accurate (and that is a significant “if”), then it is just as accurate to say that belief is (partially) caused by genetics as it is to say that unbelief is (partially) caused by genetics. Communication requires that it be framed some way, after all. Nevertheless, our framing often reveals our personal biases, and this ubiquitous frame suggests a ubiquitous bias behind it as well.

Posted in Atheism, Science | 1 Comment

A Most Peculiar Animal

Posted on August 13, 2013 by Matt

Though philosophy is usually considered a more high-brow, ivory-tower kind of discipline, it is something everybody practices, whether they do so intentionally or not. Accordingly, philosophies that start out among the elites in the academy always have a way of filtering down into popular culture—even if their formulations become a bit rough in the transition.

One of these is the idea that humans are just another kind of animal. We have some capabilities (e.g. analytical thought) in greater quantity than other animals, while some of our other capabilities (e.g. sight or strength) are markedly inferior to those of other species. The upshot is that while our technical specs might be different in quantity, there is no qualitative difference. Many philosophers contend that the peculiarly human concerns about notions of “higher” things like morality, truth, or beauty are merely the dressing up of the same concerns any animals have. Logical Positivists, for example, contended that when a man says “it’s wrong to murder,” all he really means is “don’t kill me!” Though he seems to be referring to something outside of himself when he says “wrong,” it’s merely a sublimated expression of his own personal desire not to be killed—a desire shared by nearly any animal. Critical Theorists likewise made it their business to reduce what had been considered objective considerations to the mere subjective preference of a particular species.

Though both of these movements are more-or-less defunct a century later, bits and pieces of their thought have nevertheless become commonplace in the public consciousness—even in arenas that are often known for their vacuousness, such as pop music.

Of course, pop music being what it is, these ideas most often find their expression when it comes to sex. The popular refrain of the 90’s, “You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel,” is probably the most obvious example, but it might be more beneficial to look at a song with a bit more narrative. In It’s Only Natural by Better than Ezra, the song’s narrative voice tells a story about a woman who abandons that voice’s bed in shame when she hears her father’s approach. The voice then chides her for this behavior in the chorus: “Don’t fight it if it feels good / You hide it, but you never should / Don’t listen to the voices in your head / What are you and me but monkeys in a tree? / It’s only natural.” Like many 20th century philosophers, the message is that the higher concepts of things like chastity, purity, and sexual morality that most of human civilization has recognized can (and indeed should) be abandoned for the sake of pleasure. After all, humans are just another kind of monkey, and monkeys do not concern themselves with sexual morality. They simply do what feels good.

Anyone who ponders this suggestion should eventually notice a rather glaring peculiarity. In the view of the narrative voice of the song, humans are apparently the only species of monkey that have to be convinced to act like monkeys. After all, I have never heard of any evidence to suggest that a monkey’s ‘monkeyness’ is purely the result of a social movement among simians. Monkeys may not concern themselves with sexual morality, but this is hardly because some monkeys convinced the others to set aside their outdated rules!

Perhaps the suggestion that sex is only natural for us humans is true. Nevertheless, even based on the song itself, this is not the end of the story, for shame at having illicit sex is also only natural for us humans. Indeed, shame in general is so natural to us that the narrative voice of the song basically shames the young woman into not feeling ashamed! Though the song tries to communicate a message of “follow your heart” in order to be free of our society’s restrictive inhibitions, it does so by adding different inhibitions. In essence, it advises ignoring the heart just as much as it advocates following it. It has to, for the woman’s heart is in conflict with itself. This is the ultimate problem with following your heart—your heart is full of all sorts of contradictory feelings and inclinations. It is fundamentally incapable of guiding itself. Many suggest that this is solved by following only the strongest of our heart’s inclinations. But paradoxically, putting all of your feelings into a cage-match in which the sole victor guides our behavior would be more accurately characterized as not following your heart, for far more is repressed and rejected than is followed.

Thankfully, even if you only consider alt-rock bands from the 90’s, there is more sophisticated music out there. I have, for example, been a fan of Toad the Wet Sprocket for decades now (writing that just made me feel remarkably old.) As songwriters, their topical interests have always been broader than pop music’s usual selection (the last girl, the current girl, or the next girl). So when they sing about us being mere animals in a bonus track for their forthcoming album (I received an advance download for Kickstarting it), their interest is less about sex than it is about a broader humanism.

At its core, Friendly Fire tries to be an expression of human unity. It categorizes intra-human ideological conflict as “friendly fire;” the idea being that in hurting one another, we’re only hurting ourselves. But instead of learning this, we choose to “believe” instead. Thus, the song also includes humanism’s usual anti-religious overtones: “Get up off your knees / Don’t bow your head anymore / Raise your voice to sing / One song true enough for us all.” Religion is seen as a divisive element responsible for much of the “friendly fire” of human conflict. It makes us see enemies where there are none because no religion is true enough for everyone

The new basis for unity that the song suggests is that we’re all beautiful animals. We all come from the earth (not the sky) and there is therefore no real separation or difference between us. But is this song really true enough for us all?

As the song implies by calling us animals, that we all come from the earth removes not only the separation between humans and other humans, but the separation between humans and animals as well. This does cut us off from the ideologies that divide us, for animals have no ideologies. However, that’s not all it does. It also inadvertently cuts us off from the ideologies that unite us, for animals have no ideologies. Animals don’t need to find a song true enough for them all, nor do they have any concept of themselves as beautiful. They neither have nor need any epiphanies about biological or evolutionary relationships to modify their behavior, and unity is not generally a big concern.

Being a part of nature, on its own, does not provide any basis for unity. Nature has, after all, has been quite accurately described as “red of tooth and claw.” Though the chorus reiterates that you “can’t trade one life for another,” many animals survive their environments only because they do precisely that. This is normal for animals. One might try and sublimate this into an inspiring story of the circle of life or the beautiful fragility of ecosystems as many species live and die in a delicate balance, but all that does is sublimate violence and death. It may label that violence as friendly fire, but it removes the stigma of the label—we are left without any basis for thinking that friendly fire is actually a bad thing.

The insurmountable problem with seeking unity on these terms is not found in a departure from human nature, but in an indelible part of it. Intrinsic to human life is judgment—the very thing that discerns good from bad and right from wrong. Whether it’s a woman judging illicit sex to be shameful, a man judging feelings of shame to be shameful, a priest judging an unbeliever as an infidel, or a humanist judging a priest as divisive, humans always judge. Every plea from postmodernism that judgment be abandoned is accompanied by judgments about why this ought to be so. Every progressive band that seeks peace does so because they judge peace to be good and conflict to be bad. Every liberal who chides someone about “forcing” his morality on others is nevertheless “forcing” his morality on others, for chiding is an act of moral judgment. Despite their best efforts, humans cannot escape judgment or the making of judgments, and yet the very act of judgment is fundamentally divisive.

This is where secular humanism falls apart, for if we must judge, we must have a basis on which to judge. “Unity is good and division is bad because _______.” The blank must be filled in. Humanity itself cannot be this basis, for this is the same humanity that rapes, murders, pillages, and lies. Neither can humans invent this basis, for we all seek to invent different ones and would need something uninvented to help us choose between them. In short, human unity can only exist when we all acknowledge a common foundation.

Secular humanism needs a foundation external to humanity, and yet it cannot admit to one’s existence without abandoning the “secular” modifier. If no religion is true enough for everyone, then humanism isn’t true enough for anyone. Our bare similarities with animals simply will not do.

The only coherent forms of humanism are the religious forms—the ones that can view human nature as something good that has been given from outside and which ought to be conformed to. It is only on such a basis that we can distinguish human nature in the sense of “what we observe humans doing” from human nature in the sense of “what humans ought to be.” And yet, this is an aspect of human nature (in both senses) that is entirely alien to other animals.

Indeed, as an animal, humans are so peculiar that one wonders whether “animal” is really a helpful category to place us in. It seems rather like saying that a Ferrari is a peculiar kind of bicycle.

Posted in Culture, Humanism, Natural Law | 2 Comments

Faithless Feedback

Posted on August 7, 2013 by Matt

How do non-Christians feel about “being on the receiving end of the efforts of Christian evangelicals to convert them?” Or, putting it in Christian language, “how do unbelievers feel about having heard a Gospel that they didn’t believe?” I think the rephrase reveals some of the problems inherent in John Shore’s forthcoming attempt to revamp Christian evangelism based on responses to this question.

Perhaps most obviously, it takes a marketing approach towards a message that is, from the beginning, a self-proclaimed stumbling block and foolishness to those who haven’t believed it. But even from a marketing perspective, he seems to be working from a skewed sample. While he has no shortage of comments from perturbed non-Christians, he might have also asked Christian converts how they feel about having heard the Gospel from Christians before they came to believe. After all, it might be wise to have both sides of the story before trying to get one side to stop what they’re doing. That said, there are a few lessons to be learned from the comments that Shore posted, though I doubt they were the ones he intended.

First a disclaimer: It is not my intention here to discount any and every criticism of the ways in which Christians try to reach unbelievers. While Peter instructs us to always be able to give a reason for the hope that we have, he also tells us to provide it with gentleness and respect—two qualities that sinners (Christian or otherwise) tend to struggle with. Likewise, there have long been anti-intellectual and anti-doctrinal trends in American Christianity that ultimately confuse and obscure the proclamation of the Gospel. I would certainly recommend that every Christian learn their faith well and develop the rhetorical skills to communicate it to the best of his or her ability. That said, I don’t think Shore’s collection of comments are terribly helpful in that regard. I find that they reveal more about the unbeliever than about the evangelist.

One such revelation is that many of these unbelievers have absolutely no idea what Jesus actually taught. “Separatism” is the very thing Jesus warned against? Jesus taught a version of “loving one another” that precludes teaching them Christianity? The Law is Jesus’ core message? One wonders exactly where their views on Jesus come from. Are they talking about the same Jesus who said he came to bring the sword and divide mother from daughter, and so forth? (Matthew 10:34-35) The same Jesus who told his followers to make disciples of all nations by baptizing and teaching? (Matthew 28:19) The same Jesus who taught that his ministry was all about his death, resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins? (Luke 24:44-47) Some of these responders were quick to affirm that they have no problem with Jesus—just with Christians. It begins to look like this is only because they don’t have the foggiest idea what Jesus actually taught.

Perhaps their ignorance is understandable since they don’t follow Christ. What is less understandable is this: Though they may not know anything about Christ’s teachings, they are not at all shy about correcting Christ’s followers on the subject. Despite their ignorance, there were quite a few statements that Christians “need to go back to their Bibles, and take a closer look at Jesus.” To be fair, many so-called Christians are just as ignorant about what Jesus teaches as these unbelievers. Well, that much is a problem that Christians can and should solve. But when it comes to evangelism, there’s not so much we can do about the apparently invincible ignorance of our unbelieving audience.

The other revelation from these comments is the excessive sensitivity they belie. One writes, “The main thing that baffles and angers me about Christians is how they can understand so little about human nature that when, in their fervor to convert another person, they tell that person (as they inevitably do, in one way or another), ‘You’re bad, and wrong, and evil,’ they actually expect that person to agree with them. It pretty much guarantees that virtually the only people Christians can ever realistically hope to convert are those with tragically low self-esteem.” Read that again. Now, “one way or another” pretty much rules out the Christian’s rhetoric as the core problem between this unbeliever and his evangelist. The core problem is the scandal of sin. “How can these Christians actually believe this absurdity that there might actually be something wrong with me?” There is no way of dressing up Jesus’ statements that this is precisely the case without excising his teaching altogether. The Pharisees couldn’t believe or accept that they were sick and in need of a physician. Neither, apparently, can many American unbelievers.

Far more revealing is how often Christ’s recognition of humanity’s sinfulness (a teaching of which Christians are only the messenger) is interpreted as “hate.” Now, there’s no question that this is an unpleasant diagnosis to hear. In addition, one might disagree with the accuracy of the diagnosis without being considered overly sensitive. But calling it “hate?” Telling a person that they have cancer isn’t hateful. Neither is telling a person that they stand condemned before God. Christians aren’t the ones making that judgment—God is. A newspaper isn’t “hating” a criminal when it reports that they have been found guilty in a court of law. Neither are Christians when they explain God’s Law and His judgment on those who have broken it.

What does all this mean for Christians’ approach to evangelism? Not too much. Invincible ignorance and hyper-sensitivity are character flaws in the hearer, not in the messenger. Once again, good rhetoric is—unsurprisingly—good. Those with the aptitude for it should pursue it with diligence. It can’t hurt to clearly frame our message as what Jesus teaches. Neither can it hurt to be clear that the Gospel isn’t a new law that we must obey lest we go to Hell. However, these things are not a panacea that cures another person’s faults. Jesus warned us that the world hated him and will hate us because of him. While it is true that the world may sometimes also hate Christians because we’re jerks, we possess no ability to remove their hatred altogether.

Only the Holy Spirit can overcome these issues, and He does so through the very delivery of His scandalous message. Ours is simply to deliver. We should always deliver it with gentleness and respect. Likewise, those Christians who are at all thoughtful and articulate should not be less thoughtful and articulate when they speak about their religion. Neither should those who are kind cease to be kind when they speak about their religion. The Holy Spirit will, no doubt, work through that very kindness and articulation. But He has promised to always be in and with the message without ever telling us that he works proportionately with our rhetorical skill.

Our own popularity is immaterial to our task. Spread the Gospel. Tell it well rather than poorly. But don’t think that reception hinges on your skill and sensitivity.

Posted in Spiritual But Not Religious, The Modern Church, Theological Liberalism | Leave a comment