Posted by Chris on April 24th, 2008 — Posted in General Discussion
Most of us have lived our lives among Christians and have been members of a Christian church for years or even our entire lives. We get glimpses of life in secular communities when we travel to Europe or if we watch a lot of television. Linda and I just returned from Eugene, Oregon where we attended the wedding of our niece.
Eugene is a university town, like Lawrence, Kansas, only perhaps a little more so. Linda’s sister, Sandi, is a respected fabric artist and is married to Mark, a well-known philosophy professor at the University of Oregon. They have two children, Paul and Sarah. Mark gave up his faith in Christ in his late twenties while a doctoral candidate at the University of Chicago. The family stopped attending church thirty years ago.
They are not anti-Christian. Sandi would probably consider herself Christian, having grown up a Methodist. They may go to Christmas service somewhere every so often. But if prayer, church attendance, and Bible reading are hallmarks of Christians, then this family is pretty much secular.
Their daughter’s wedding at home was a lovely affair. The weather would not cooperate, so a last minute change put all the guests into the basement. Forethought had made the basement pretty with lots of flowers and candles. The pastor was ordained in the Universal Life Church. This smart young woman named Star conducted a pleasant ceremony without mentioning God. There were no Bible readings. The couple took their vows to each other, also without invoking God. The guests, an eclectic group of blue collar folk from the groom’s side and high brows from the bride’s side, seemed pleased by the ceremony and the absence of God’s name went without comment.
Toasts at the reception were made by the father of the bride, the maid of honor, and the best man. They were mostly quotes from appropriate sources, but none mentioned God or was taken from the Bible. I talked with the Pastor, who seemed pleased to linger as the reception wore down. She explained the history of the Universal Life Church, and said that you could believe pretty much anything you want or believe nothing at all and still be ordained. She said she was spiritual and believed all religions had some part of the truth.
Mark is a great guy. He is brilliant and long-suffering and serves as a stalwart in his family that has suffered from a variety of dysfunctions and mental illnesses that would have sent most of us packing. He is passionate about politics and the environment. I think he pretty much agrees with Al Gore on both scores. He is a deeply moral man and much of his work revolves around constructing a philosophical basis for moral thinking. His life seems consistent to me, based on the Golden Rule. He is a good husband and father. If he has serious shortcomings, I am not aware of them and don’t care to be. If he is inconsistent (he lives in a fairly large house and drives an Expedition) then it is the kind of inconsistency that most humans who are also American are guilty of. I enjoy Mark’s company. He laughs at my jokes and is in no way self-righteous.
Sandi is one of my favorite people. She is very sensitive to the feelings of others and if I have to watch myself it is only not to be offensive due to my much less sensitive nature. She is a loyal sister and friend. The number of Sandi’s friends who showed up for the wedding spoke volumes.
They live in a community that largely supports and endorses their politics and views about society. I suspect they could go for weeks, maybe months, without any serious conversation about religion or God. I don’t know if any of the family prays, although I hope they do.
If it is not clear from what I have said, I genuinely like and admire Mark and Sandi. I describe them for a reason. I want to know what it is about my life that is qualitatively different from theirs. I have called myself a Christian since I was eighteen. I belong to a church where I attend most Sundays. If I can’t be there on Sunday, I worship where I am. I belong to a men’s Bible study. I lead a Sunday School class. We give to Christian charities. Linda and I pray at home and read the Bible. We raised our children in the church and go together when they are home.
But how would someone who knew nothing about Mark or me judge that one of us was a Christian? Or what about our lives would even make someone care? These are not rhetorical questions. I suspect some of you have the same questions with regard to non-believing (or non-practicing) relatives or friends.
I think this would be a good topic for our class. I don’t know what the title would be, but I think it might be something like, “How do we live our lives as if Christ means something to us?”
No Comments »
Posted by Chris on April 7th, 2008 — Posted in General Discussion
We will soon be commencing on a study based on Adam’s book Confronting the Controversies. I recommend every one get a copy of the book if you don’t have it. I have the original edition, which varies substantially on only one issue, homosexuality, from the revised edition. Either one is fine for our purposes.
I think this might be a good time to share some ruminations of mine regarding how Christians might be more effective in the market place of ideas. Most of us have come to cringe when the self-appointed spokesmen for the Christian right decide to expound on why our country is in trouble. If even conservative Christians, such as myself, are made uncomfortable by locutions such as “the reason X (fill in the blank with September 11, Hurricane Katrina, etc.) happened is because of America’s attitude toward X (fill in the blank, with abortion, homosexuality, etc.)” then I can only imagine what liberals or non-religious people make of such statements.
We have also seen the ungracious way that the Christian left speaks about issues such as race, war, and patriotism. Rev. Jeremiah Wright has gotten more publicity than the average leftist pastor, but he is by no means unique. His speech infuriates conservatives and is an embarrassment even to liberals.
So as not to bore you (more than you already are) I am going to give a very short version of a much longer thought about how we can address issues of public concern as Christians without defaming our Lord.
First, let’s acknowledge that liberals and conservatives may be very devout Christians who share our ultimate destiny. (We must also acknowledge that many conservatives and liberals have no Christian faith at all, but they are not my concern here.) Let us also acknowledge that our faith informs our ethics and views of what is right and wrong in public policy. Yet, we can come to very different conclusions on very important topics. Some Christians are pacifists. Some Christians believe in pre-emptive war. Each can cite Bible verses to support their position. If you don’t think pre-emptive war can be supported in the Bible, then you have not read Joshua. If you don’t think pacifism can be supported in the Bible, then you have not read the Sermon on the Mount. If you think the Sermon on the Mount trumps Joshua, then re-read the Sermon on the Mount.
My point is simple: Serious minded Christians can differ on fundamental matters of public policy. So, what’s a Christian to do?
Let’s acknowledge our presuppositions but stop beating each other with our proof texts. Let’s make our arguments based on our best knowledge of history, sociology, political principal, economics and all of the other disciplines that inform our views on what is best for our communities and nation.
An example: One may say that the best government policy is to provide food, clothing, and shelter for the poor. Another may say that when government does that it perpetuates poverty. Both want to ameliorate social conditions, but simply think that each other’s view is not the best way to do it. Get my drift? We should assume faith and goodwill on the part of the other person. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with their reasoning or underlying political principals.
But our arguments are based not on whose view of the Bible is correct, but rather on what experience, principal, and history teach us. Our principals are not advanced by having one say, “Are we not our brother’s keeper?” only to have the reply, “He who does not work should not eat,” thrown back at him. Both comments assume Biblical faith but are the equivalent of the sound bite we have come to detest from the media. I believe that I am my brother’s keeper and that I need to keep my brother hungry if he won’t work. Has that really advanced any useful position on what government welfare policy ought to be? I don’t think so.
There are equivalent Biblical sound bites we can throw at each other on virtually any topic from war to abortion to welfare to homosexuality. How about we stop doing that when it comes to advocating public policy positions?
That is not to say that there is not great value in close study of the Bible to arrive at what is right and wrong for ourselves, our families, and our churches. Indeed, without Christian morality based on Biblical values, I don’t think Western Civilization with its emphasis on rule of law, free elections, and economic choice would exist. But Christianity has thrived in places where none of those things was (or is) known. Jesus does not depend on a Democrat or a Republican being elected. But our witness and effectiveness as Christians does depend on civility, wisdom, and forms of argument that are not patently repellent to our fellow citizens.
We will Confront the Controversies in our class. We will certainly look to the Bible to inform our opinions about where we should come down on controversial issues. In fact, I would be disappointed if anyone took a position that was clearly unsustainable from the Bible. But when we step out into the public square, we must use language that is persuasive beyond our own circle. I hope we can use our class as a training ground for taking our faith into the public square in a manner that is persuasive to a wider audience.
No Comments »
Posted by Chris on March 10th, 2008 — Posted in General Discussion
In today’s Wall Street Journal there is an article about Barak Obama’s church, and especially its senior pastor, endorsing him and slamming other politicians from the pulpit. Specific endorsements or criticisms of candidates for office are prohibited for tax-exempt organizations. It will be interesting to see if Americans United for Separation of Church and State files a complaint against Barak’s church.
No Comments »
Posted by Chris on December 22nd, 2007 — Posted in General Discussion
This spring, an exhibit called Bodies Revealed is coming to Kansas City’s Union Station. While it is billed as an educational exhibit, it features actual skinless human corpses that have been preserved by replacing water and fat with plastic in a process known as “plastination.” The Union Station website says that both Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey endorse the exhibit, so why wouldn’t we all go and celebrate such an event?
Bodies Revealed is a duplication of Gunther von Hagens’ Body Worlds which he first exhibited in Tokyo in 1995. These competing exhibits tour the world showing a couple of dozen plasticized corpses, many in humorous or antic poses.
While one may concede the necessity of cadavers for scientific education, is the display of formerly ensouled bodies in fun and entertaining poses consistent with the dignity and reverence we have always insisted on for the dead? What does it say about our society that we now treat human bodies, even if under a thin veneer of “health education,” as sources of entertainment? And that the proprietors of such ghoulish displays sell souvenirs to add to the profits of their endeavor?
All societies and religions have had elaborate rituals concerning the care and respect for the dead. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, bodies have been prepared for the grave and interred with reverence and dignity. The only exception to respect for the dead is when groups have left dead bodies displayed in order to terrorize their enemies, an exception that rightly repulses us all.
Could it be that the proprietors of these exhibits, and those of us who thoughtlessly patronize them have accepted the philosophy that bodies are in fact nothing but matter that once provided the locus for electrical signals and body functions? We once viewed inordinate interest in dead bodies as ghoulish, if not perverted. Should our views be changed simply because “plastination” has permanently retarded decay? These bodies once held immortal souls. What does it say about us that we now pay money to see them publicly posed as humorous objects for our amusement or amazement?
No Comments »
Posted by Chris on December 14th, 2007 — Posted in General Discussion
The Golden Compass is a hit movie based on the first of a trilogy of books by Philip Pullman. He is an avowed atheist who detests the works of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tokien. Mr. Pullman wrote the His Dark Materials trilogy in part as a response to the works of Lewis and Tolkien, whom he considered to be corrupting youth.
The most helpful commentary on Mr. Pullman’s writings and the movie may be found here. Suffice it to say, that although the director of the movie maligns critics as illterate, that the movie will introduce young readers in America to Mr. Pullman’s well-written books that are intended to indoctrinate every bit as much as C.S. Lewis intended, and much more than Tolkien intended.
My own view is that well-informed and mature Christians probably should consider seeing the movie, assuming it meets their other criteria for outings. By all means, take your children. Have dinner afterwards and discuss what you see. But make sure that everyone knows this is Intro to Atheism 101.
No Comments »
Posted by Tom Bamford on December 6th, 2007 — Posted in General Discussion
Mitt Romney took to the airways today to explain that his Mormon faith presents no impediment to serving as President of the United States. For the text of his speech…CLICK HERE. He follows in the footsteps of John Kennedy, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me..”
Both addressed the perception that adhering to his faith requires an obedience to the leaders of that faith superior to any oath of office. For Kennedy it was the Pope, for Romney, the LDS Prophet and Council of the Twelve.
As the election of 1960 demonstrated John Kennedy laid these concerns to rest. Was Romney successful in allaying the fears of the electorate? Did Romney pass the religious test to be President?
1 Comment »
Posted by Chris on December 3rd, 2007 — Posted in General Discussion
According to a recent Gallup Poll, 58% of Republicans report they have “excellent” mental health, while 43% of Independents, and only 38% of Democrats say their mental health is excellent. What can account for this?
Even controlling for the fact that Republicans tend to be wealthier than Democrats, as well as attend church more often, stay married longer, and have better looking children, (just kidding about the last one) Republicans are happier and self-report better mental health. Why is this?
One of my Democrat friends says it’s because Republicans are self-deluded and view life unrealistically. “If only Republican knew how bad things really were, they would be depressed like us Democrats,” she says.
Well, that’s a theory. My own view is that Republicans tend by nature to be more optimistic than Democrats. They realize that the world is imperfect and are delighted when things go well at all. At the same time, Democrats tend to compare reality to Utopia, and are therefore disappointed even when things are going better than expected.
Is anyone reading this blog?
1 Comment »