Coming to Christ Gently

"Christianity," as an identifiable separate religion, doesn't actually have a birthday in spite of the fact that we usually celebrate Pentecost as the birthday of the church.  In fact, the Spirit-filled followers of Jesus remained an identifiable sect of Judaism for many decades.  Most of the them were Jewish, and one powerful wing of the "Way," as it was called, believed that only Jews could be his followers.  Over time, however, the rest of Judaism found the Way less and less acceptable while more and more of Jesus' followers weren't Jewish; and eventually the Way became a separate religion, Christianity.  This took time.  It is not correct, for example, to call the Apostle Paul a Christian.  Christianity as an identifiable religion didn't exist yet, and it is clear from the New Testament that Paul considered himself to be a practicing Jew who believed that Jesus was the messiah (Christ).  The point here is that the church evolved from being a Jewish religious group with peculiar (but still Jewish) beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth into an identifiably separate religion with Jewish roots.  It took time for us to go through this process of separation.

Conversely, the 19th century western Protestant missionary movement preached a message that called on people of other faiths and cultures to convert to Christianity and become, virtually, a part of the western church.  Converts were expected to reject their previous religion and join churches that were like western churches.  They sang western hymns translated into the local language.  They sat on pews.  Nothing in the church was borrowed from their former faith.  Unlike the early church, which only gradually separated itself from Judaism, convert churches formed by the Protestant missionary movement were expected to make a swift and clean break with their past, and they were ex that there had been anything good in that past.  In many nations, the consequence was that most people refused to make such a break even if they were otherwise attracted to faith in Jesus.  Leaving their former religion so abruptly created tensions with neighbors and other family members, and it meant giving up much in life that was comforting and familiar.

In the past, Protestant missionaries simply insisted that a hard break had to be made, many still do.  But, in various parts of the world there is a movement of sorts to create churches that do not make a hard and fast break with their original faith and its culture.  Although not stated as such, the goal is to replicate more nearly the experience of the early church by making a gradual separation from one's previous faith and to dispense with hard and fast boundaries between religions that have to be crossed in a single leap.  The Hindu religious movement,Yeshu Satsang, is one such attempt to come to Christ more gently, less abruptly, and with less conflict.  In a posting entitled, "Following Jesus Yet Still Hindu or Sikh? Mission Leaders Weigh In on New Communities," reporter Michelle A. Vu describes how Yeshu Satsang communities have emerged as a way for Hindu and Sikh followers of Jesus to remain fully Hindu or Sikh as they explore and develop their faith in Christ.  They worship in ways that make sense within their own culture.  They've adapted the sacraments to fit that culture.  They sing songs that are Hindu and Sikh, and the members of Yeshu Satsang "churches" will sometimes insist that they are not Christians (i.e. members of a foreign religion) but remain Hindu or Sikh.  It's just that they follow Jesus.

That's worth thinking about—being a follower of Jesus but not a Christian.  That's what Paul was.  Peter and the other disciples all died before there was a Christian religion.  They followed Jesus while remaining devout, practicing Jews.  One of the things that seems to be happening in our increasingly secular society is that small groups of followers of Jesus are reinventing the church in ways that make more sense in the 21st century than do traditional churches.  Maybe something we should be aiming for is to be more Christ-like and less Christian.  Worth a thought.

Don't Drink the Stuff, Guys

A recent news posting on WebMD entitled, "Soda May Worsen Knee Osteoarthritis in Men," warns that researchers have recently found a possible link between soft drinks and steoarthritis in men.  This link has nothing to do with the fact that soft drinks are fattening, and being overweight puts more pressure on the joints.  When one of the researchers was asked what men should do about soft drinks, his advice was to not drink the stuff—esp. because there is some research evidence linking soft  drinks to heart disease.  The beverage industry, of course, rejects these latest research findings, but it has no more credibility than did the tobacco industry when it denied the link between smoking and cancer.

Regular readers will forgive me for my periodic postings attacking the consumption of soft drinks and junk food, but they are a health menace and enemies of the public.  They are addictive substances that we abuse regularly and massively.  So, what should we do?  Stop drinking and eating the stuff.  Amen.

Is Evolution "Guided"?

Earlier this year, the blog Open Parachute posted an article entitled, "Theological mental gymnastics over evolution," which criticizes theists who believe that God actively guides evolution for "throwing the baby out" with the bath water.  The author is a self-proclaimed non-theist who is concerned to protect the practice of science from theistic intrusions.  In the article, he says that he doesn't have a problem with those believers who think that God somehow initiated the evolutionary process and then leaves it alone so that it carries on unguided.  The author, however, does not approve of those theists who believe that God guides evolution.  He insists that evolution is an unguided process.  The Open Parachute posting echoes the sentiments of the biologist, Jerry A. Coyne, who has written (here), "...I vehemently oppose those evolutionists and accommodationists who won’t affirm that evolution is unguided and purposeless (in the sense of not being directed by a higher intelligence or teleological force). For to the best of our knowledge evolution, like all natural processes, is purposeless and unguided."

The short answer to these sentiments that theists often rush to is that they are nothing more or less than the opinions of individuals who do not know that evolution is purposeless and unguided.  Science, the argument goes, is not competent to judge such things.  In fact, by its very nature it is purposely blind to meta-physical realities.  When atheists assert the absence of God, they enter the realm of theology and make theological claims, and they can no more prove scientifically their anti-doctrines than we can prove our doctrines.

As far as it goes, our critique of their critique is correct.  As far as it goes.  But our atheistic friends raise a question that we should not dodge by jumping to our own counter-critique.  They are correct in observing that evolution is, as best we can tell, a random process that does not seem to be guided or to have purpose.  We should also pay attention to the danger of too easily imposing a theistic overlay onto natural processes, such as evolution.  Science is a valuable tool for obtaining knowledge, and we have to respect its integrity as such.

Still, theists approach such questions relying on another set of "data," which is not scientific but compelling.  For Christians, Jesus of Nazareth is the key data point, or perhaps it is better to say that the Incarnation is that key data point.  Religious experiences, which have a biological component and so are a part of the "real" world of science, comprises a second data point, one we Christians share with people of other faiths (and, apparently, some who claim no faith).  The almost mystical connection that we have with the natural world (and something we feel with particular clarity here in Lewis County) provides a third data point, perhaps linked to the second.  And, then, the ongoing process of creation is itself still another data point.  That a universe friendly to life on Earth even exists defies odds so incredible that on the face of it belief in an unguided and purposeless natural world seems more outlandish than belief that it the universe is in some way guided and built out of some purpose.  The speculation of some atheists that there is an infinite number of universes (so, of course, at least one must have life) only makes the whole thing even more incredible—an infinite reality that has no purpose?  The belief that evolution is purposeless and unguided is just a belief and one that has nothing to do with science as a set of disciplines devoted to study of the natural world.  Evolution, indeed, actually seems to be headed in a direction, one in which non-life leapt into life and non-intelligence became intelligence and, quite possibly, we are standing on the verge of another leap from biological intelligence to cyber-intelligence.  Over the course of evolution things are getting more complex.  To no end?  That could be, but given our other data points we Christians think that there is guided purpose to it all.  Evolution seems to have direction because it does have direction, within that direction there lies purpose, and Beyond that purpose there lies guidance.

But, what kind of purpose?  How is evolution "guided"?  We need to walk beyond some of our traditional thinking and answers because our non-theist friends are correct when they state that evolution does work randomly and does not appear to be guided.  They are correct that we can understand a great deal about the biology of evolution without recourse to metaphysical "speculations."  How can evolution be both guided and not, both purposeful and not?  Those are the questions we must face.  (Actually, we have long faced them in such questions as the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will).

Ideolatry

A couple of years back, the blog Findings posted a brief article on the word "ideolatry" (here).  Now, neither dictionary.com nor wiktionary recognize"ideolatry" as a word (nor does this blog's spell check), so Finding's posting may be fanciful, but if so it still makes an important point.  In its analysis of "ideolatry" in relationship to idolatry and ideology, the posting concludes that ideolatry means that, "We give service to ideas, and they become our reasonable worship."  Ideolatry occurs when we turn an idea, doctrine, or ideology into something so sacrosanct that we virtually treat it as an object of veneration and worship.  If it isn't a "real" word, it should be.  Bibliolatry, one of the chief forms of Christian false worship, for example, is a close kin to and perhaps even a child of ideolatry.  We are seeing the full  power of ideolatry in the wake of the 2012 elections as so many of the losers twist in the winds of denial, unable to see their ideological idols for what they are.  (The political winners, of course, always stand in danger of transforming their own ideologies into idols and maybe some of them already are).

Statistical State of the Nation

For a fascinating statistical portrait of American politics in November 2012, see CNN's exit polls data (here), gathered from 26,565 respondents.  The data not only describes who voted for whom but also the views of the respondents on a variety of current political topics.  For example, 26% of the respondents agreed that they are white born again Christians, 74% disagreed.  Some 21% agreed that they support the tea party movement while 30% disagreed.  The same data is available for each state.  In New York, thus, only 8% of the respondents agreed that they are white born again Christians, and only 16% agreed that they support the tea party while 39% disagreed.  The data reveals the relative balance between liberal, moderates, and conservatives, income distributions, and so forth through a truck load of categories.  It's worth a look.

Theology & American Politics Today - a postscript

In the previous two postings, I've argued that a powerful wing of the Republican Party today is mired in ideological idolatry, which necessarily blinds them to the realities of early 21st century American politics.  Idolatry in all of its forms is self-defeating.  Theologically, it stands under divine judgment, which is here understood to mean that its failure is planted in the very nature of who we are as human beings.  Gravity causes things to drop.  Idolatry causes people and movements to fail.  To the extent that the Republican Party remains trapped in an ultra-right ideology, to just that extent it will inevitably dwindle into irrelevance.  False gods always bite the hands that worship them.

Writing for CNN, commentator Will Marshall has just written an article entitled, "The GOP's real problem is ideology."  Marshall points out the unmistakable consequences of putting ideology before reality, which ended with the Republicans' failure to capitalize on an economic environment in which they "could not lose" and lost.  Rendered majestically tone deaf by their ideology, they went out of their way to alienate African Americans, Latinos, and many women.  Marshall concludes, "A conservative governing philosophy centered on exploiting white voters' sense of cultural dispossession is a formula for political marginalization, if not demographic suicide. Any honest post-mortem of the 2012 election should lead Republican strategists to this inescapable conclusion: It's the ideology, stupid."

If, however, we visit the right wing websites, we hear very little of this kind of reflection.  There, the commentary is more largely (but by no means entirely) marked by finger pointing, denial, animosity directed at President Obama, and a protective insistence that "conservative principles" were not at fault in Republican losses (see here for one example).  A lot of the blame is falling on Governor Romney.  The word "scapegoat" comes to mind.

In sum, the theological doctrines of judgment and idolatry are important analytical tools that provide important insights into the real world of American politics.  One wishes it was otherwise.  But it isn't.

Theology & American Politics Today (ii)

Picking up from the last posting, the focus of much of the political commentary since last Tuesday has been on the Republican Party.  How will it respond to its losses, which were serious and totally unexpected by party leaders, pundits, and faithful?  There is the hope that it will learn its lesson and shift back to the center at least enough so that it can advocate a less abrasive and radical conservatism.  There is the fear that it can't and that we will continue to be plagued by asymmetrical politics.  Stated theologically, there is the hope that the party will learn the lessons of idolatry and will move away from the hardline ideology in which is has been mired for some years now.  The statement, "This is not your grandparents' Republican Party," reflects the reality of how far to the hard right the party has fallen. The predominant portion worships uncritically at the feet of Conservatism.  The religious fundamentalism of the Evangelical Right gives this idolatry a religious fervor, one of the key marks of idolatry being the worship of a false idol.  The racial fear of people of color, the Other so potently symbolized by President Obama, is an idol in itself and powerfully contributes to the Idol of Conservatism worshipped by the dominant wing of today's Republican Party.

Much of the Republican Party appears to live in a bubble because it does live in a bubble.  Its faithful live in an alternative reality where their hard right version of conservatism fed by religious fundamentalism and white racism is god-like, and the god their religious wing preaches is a piece of their idolatry.  The Republican Party was not like this in the past.  The Democratic Party, for all of its obvious flaws, is not like this today, although the possibility that it could be is always with us.  Inside the bubble of right wing idolatry, the president is an anti-christ figure.  He is not the legitimate president.  He is a Muslim born in Kenya.  He is a socialist who doesn't understand how the "real" America works.  He is incompetent and lazy (meaning, of course, he is a person of color).  His followers are ignoramuses or only interested in living off the government "teat"—"they" just want "stuff" (meaning, of course, they too are people of color).  Thus, the 2012 election's results are mind-boggling to the idolatrous hardcore Right that is so powerful in the Republican Party.  Its faithful are fervently convinced that the real America of their forefathers is dying.

Idolatry is always insidious and always carries its own judgment.  The political ideology that infects a powerful wing of the Republican Party cannot be sustained in the long run.  As a form of idolatry, it is self-defeating and self-destructive.  The thing that is not comforting is that idols fall hard and in the process cause significant collateral damage.  What could happen is that the hard right wing of the Republican Party will refuse to budge politically or practice compromise, and the demographic realities of 21st century America will inexorably squeeze it into a smaller and smaller space until eventually it will become irrelevant.  But the process will take time.  Each election cycle the Republican Party as it is today will shrivel a little more.  As some have already observed, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio will become solid blue states.  The new swing states will be places like Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.  The electoral college math suggests that it will become harder and harder for a Republican to win the presidency.  The Congress will eventually become lopsided with Democrats.  And the real debate in American politics will be between liberal and conservative blue dog Democrats with a rump Republican Party sometimes allying itself with the blue dogs.

Or, perhaps, the Republican Party can shake the party loose from its idolatry, and we can return to true, fruitful two party politics.  This could well happen.  Certainly, right now there is a sense that the Republicans could loosen up their doctrine of "new no taxes" and could accept some kind of meaningful immigration reform measure.  Some powerful Republicans, at least, heard the message that the public is tired of all the fighting and wants a Washington that works effectively and cooperatively.  This second scenario is preferable, but given where the party is today not certain.  Idols fall hard.  Their faithful will not, cannot live outside the bubble.  They cannot compromise their principles.  They honestly believe that their  political opponents are inherently evil.  And the realities of 21st century America will eventually bring their god crashing down, but it will take time and there will be a good deal of damage done to the very fabric of our nation.

The matter hangs in the balance.  Idols are powerful, and a wing of the Republican Party will not learn the lessons of defeat.  They will continue to live inside the bubble, and their intransigence threatens the whole party with decline and eventual irrelevance on the national scene.  There is another wing, however, that can live outside of the bubble and learn the hard lessons of last Tuesday.  The key is compromise and humility.  Real-world politics requires compromise and a pinch of humility.  If the Republican Party can shake itself free of doctrinaire politics ("no new taxes" politics), it can reverse the otherwise inevitable demographic decline that threatens it today—if.  But, we should never forget that idols fall hard.

Theology & American Politics Today (i)

As the pundits and politicians assess the aftermath of last Tuesday's elections, the pieces of analysis that they will miss are theological.  They wouldn't be interested or impressed even if they had an inkling that such an analysis exists.  Still,  it is worth our time here to engage in a little theological reflection and prognostication regarding our nation's current situation and future prospects.

In doing so, a couple of theological principles are relevant.  The first is divine judgment.  From the perspective of evolutionary theology, God's judgment is built into the very fabric of what it means to be human.  One might even liken it, spiritually, to gravity.  It is what it is and cannot be challenged let alone abrogated.  Divine judgment dictates that actions have consequences that reflect the action itself.  Thus good actions breed good consequences and evil actions are their own "reward."  At the micro level, this law is very messy and involves a lot of "collateral damage" because others suffer for the wrongs we do, just as others benefit from the good we do.  The second theological principle at work is idolatry, which is closely allied with divine judgment.  Idolatry is the worship of anything that is not worthy of worship.  In our day and age, false ideologies are one of the most common forms of idolatry.  Idolatry is powerful, insidious, and ultimately destructive of the idolater, but again with "collateral damage" as others are adversely affected by the passion and failed actions of those engaged in false worship.  Addictions can be considered forms of idolatry, the false worship of pleasure.

 Judgement and idolatry are two key doctrines of the Christian faith.  They are also important tools for the analysis of the current state of American politics and the nation.  Let me save the hows, whys, and therefores for a second posting, probably tomorrow.

Nate Frustrates the Pundits

"I think I get a lot of grief because I frustrate narratives that are told by pundits and journalists that don't have a lot of grounding in objective reality,"

Nate Silver, Pollster of Polls

In an Interview with Charlie Rose (here),  October 30, 2012

The Politics of Dialogue

"Political Dialogue"

Anderzej Dudzinski

In the wake of Tuesday's election, the initial signs of what's coming next in Washington are mixed and uncertain.  The raise a couple of important questions.  Will the liberals headed to or headed back to D.C. learn a modicum of moderation and not over-interpret their "mandate," which doesn't seem to be a mandate to be liberal fundamentalists?  Will esp. the tea party radicals learn the true art of politics, namely compromise for the sake of the common good?  There are some sound bites coming out of House Republicans that suggest that "seeking common ground" is now possible.  There are others that seem to be saying, "We won, too, which means our mandate to resist compromise in all forms has been reaffirmed by our constituents."

In religious circles, there is n important spiritual discipline called "dialogue."  Dialogue is an exercise in listening before speaking that seeks deeper understanding of the dialogue partner's faith.  It is a spiritual exercise in peacemaking.  Dialogue requires humility and respect.  It also requires a critical mind and heart, which listen critically to one's own words as well the words of the partner.  Dialogue is the true opposite of debate.  Dialogue is thus not a search for common ground per se.  It is only a search for deeper understanding that balances self-interest with other-interest where debate is a clash of two opposing self-interests.  In debate, one listens to discover the weaknesses of one's opponent.  In dialogue, one listens to discover oneself in the spirituality of another.  In dialogue, we are always the student first and maybe a modest teacher later—maybe.  Dialogue is not give and take; it is give and receive.

That being said, the crucial question for the Congress of the United States from this day forward is whether or not it can discover a politics of dialogue.  Can it, at least, move slightly in that direction?  Can esp. the tea party fundamentalists discover the essential dialogical truths of politics that the common good trumps ideological purity and that compromise is a good thing when practiced with integrity and a concern for that common good?  Those are dialogical values.  They are also good politics.  Good politics requires some degree of humility and a modicum of willingness to listen, really seriously listen to the way one's political opponent loves America and wants to serve the nation.  Modest liberals, moderates, and conservatives come equipped with dialogical attitudes—or, at least, there is a decent chance they come so equipped.  Fundamentalists of all stripes do not.  In the Congress today, the scale is tipped heavily toward right-wing fundamentalists who worship at the feet of ideological purity.  In their purity, they show open disdain for the practice of good politics and and their opponents.  The gridlock in Washington will be broken only to the extent that these fundamentalists learn at least a little of the spiritual discipline of dialogue.  Amen.