Does Christianity lead to Atheism?

An odd lead question, but the thought results from a brief quote I read some where (which I have utterly failed to find; I often read a lot in short period of time, and it is hard sometimes to track where all the bits come from) and the obvious rise of New Atheism. It is a question we need to ask as we watch our Christian culture rapidly erode.

A bit of history first; as Christianity spread across Europe, Zeus and Jupiter and Thor were all laid to rest, in large part because Christianity represents a significantly superior metaphysical system. The God of the Bible isn’t merely a glorified man with all the attendant weaknesses; He is transcendent, above and before all things, and yet intimately intertwined with the personal history of mankind. There are no squabbles in heaven; unlike Olympus and Valhalla, Christ isn’t performing in a celestial soap opera, vying with all the other gods for power and love. Christ is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords, and all alternatives are obliterated in a primarily Christian culture.

As much as this is true, only one alternative is left to the God of the Bible when a culture is primarily Christian, and that is no belief at all. As the old gods no longer suffice, and as human hearts are ever seeking their own way apart from ‘the light’ as Christ put it, many are left with no alternative but to abandon religious belief all together.

This would explain the increasing secularization of Europe, and how a Russia fully ensconced in the Orthodox faith turned to the harshest form of atheism-in-practice, namely Stalinism.

Atheists also have the advantage of tolerance in a primarily Christian country. Unlike many civilizations, original Christianity understood that belief in Christ was an act of the conscious will – that is one must choose to follow Christ; it could not be the product of compulsion. As a result, atheists are free to reject prevailing Christianity, even criticize it with little fear of reprisal – a notion that would be unthinkable in Islamic countries, or many ancient theocracies.

In addition, living in a country that is predominantly Christian affords atheists cover for a lack of moral code – they can adopt the overarching morality of Christianity while maintaining the pretense that morality can be readily derived from reason. There is no history to support the notion that the moral basis of Western nations can be derived from anything but Christianity, but once established, the origin of morality is often quickly forgotten.

This understanding sounds an ominous bell for the US. Though we remain one of the most religious countries in the world, at least according to polls, the increasing secularization of our culture seems fairly obvious. And when closely explored, the religious are less likely to believe in an orthodox (little ‘o’) form of Christianity, and in what has come to be termed Moralistic Therapeutic Deism – basically a watered down version of Christianity meant to make us feel good about ourselves and give us hope, without all the attendant challenges of obeying God and respecting His commandments, or fearing any form of judgment.

And what this portends for the US is a potential European secularization, with all the diminishments that come with such a change; increasing hopelessness, less interest in family and future, and more concern with immediate comfort and pleasure.

In the gospels Jesus tells a parable of a man who, once free of an evil spirit, does nothing to fill the emptiness in his soul, merely orders his life without seeing it transformed:

“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

I think the truth Jesus meant to impart here is that a mere veneer of spirituality is not sufficient to maintain fruits of a Christian life; indeed it can open the door to a state worse than having been a Christian culture at all.

In short, our generation in the Western world enjoys a home put into order by others before us, but to the degree we don’t experience for ourselves sincere belief and personal transformation, the emptiness that remains invites evils much worse than those Christendom originally displaced.

Making a Declaration

I have to admit I am not much of a joiner – or signer. I have a rather innate tendency to go against the crowd and avoid populist movements. But when a statement brings together Evangelicals, Catholics, and those of the Orthodox persuasion, it catches my attention.

The Manhattan Declaration is just such a statement – it addresses three fundamental issues, critical to Christians everywhere, of every ilk – it is introduced as follows:

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

It’s pretty straightforward – three issues which require our response and steadfast affirmation. They are not popular positions to take, but this is time to be a shrinking violet Christian, compromising on principles.

The people who wrote this recognize that our backs are against the wall as it were, and at least on these issues we have much more in common than we have separating us, and these perilous times requires a unified response. Many of the names are immediately recognizable – but in my mind their names aren’t nearly as important as yours and mine – I would strongly encourage you to go to manhattandeclaration.org and sign their petition or common principles.

Some Friday Encouragement

  I admit when it comes to politics and social/political/scientific issues, I am a bit of a curmudgeon. Perhaps this is because one truth that informs my beliefs is that humans are essentially sinful, and that truth should inform our policies and views. The lack of understanding this truth has led to much misery in the world.

 That being said, other truths inform my beliefs - one being that all people, being made in God’s image, have inherent worth and value. The other is that God desires to display believers, corruptible weak vessels that we are, His incredible love to humanity.

 To that I have two videos – one of which is from a piece on Good Morning America this morning. The second is from a center in Kenya which serves disabled children. I am very blessed to know both families in these videos, and humbled by their great service. Well, take a look for yourselves: 

The first video is from Good Morning America this morning, and it’s an amazing  story about some friends of ours, Jay and Beth Loecken:

Next, Tracey Hagman with Heshima Childrens Center in a slum in Nairobi, Kenya, called Ngando:

Interestingly, Jay and Beth were inspired by Eric and Tracey during a mission trip to Africa (which my wife and I have also been on). I was priviledged to know both couples, when we attended the same church. What strikes me about them both though is that they weren’t what I would would consider the stereotypical ‘missionary’ types – the were both realtively ordinary ordinary folks living fairly comfortable successful lives, who decided, with no little sacrifice, too obey God’s calling of a life of service and sacrifice.

As tempted as I am to comment further, I think their lives speak for themselves.

Last Stand in Clark County

Comes a story out of out of Las Vegas Nevada not unlike the recent events I detailed earlier in Kentucky. In this particular case, rather than banning a prayer, the school administrators took restrictions a step further; they shut off the microphone of a valedictorian when it was perceived she might voice religious sentiments, or more specifically, credit her success with it's source; faith in Christ. From the report:

She knew her speech as valedictorian of Foothill High School would be cut short, but Brittany McComb was determined to tell her fellow graduates what was on her mind and in her heart.

But before she could get to the word in her speech that meant the most to her — Christ — her microphone went dead.

The decision to cut short McComb's commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.

However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb's mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Presumably had she given praise to the public school systems, a disciplined homework regime, or positive thinking, Foothill High School Valedictorian Brittany McComb would have been free to say whatever she pleased. Indeed, had she criticized the current government, the supposed 'intolerance' of more conservative thinkers, or any other presumed enemies of the American educational system, she certainly would have been applauded by those in charge.

The ACLU, long the protector of speech, no matter how vulgar or vile, seems wholly complicitous with the administration. Allen Lichtenstein, an ACLU lawyer, who finds school dress codes to be "Orwellian" finds the systematic review and editorial removal of references to Christ to be wholly inline with the administrator's duties.

I think this is a further demonstration of the restrictive nature of the secular state. By attempting to parse the sentiments of a young woman who by all measures was a an educational success in one of the largest districts in the US, the school in all respects acts as advocate of anti-religious ideologies. Far from being neutral, the school teaches it's captive audience that the only true freedom is a godless one.

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. My own children attend a charter school here in Minnesota. It is a fairly unique school, originally begun by home-schoolers and sponsored by a local Christian college. Even though it is a 'public' school, because of our charter system it flies under the radar of many of the restrictive policies normally found in our nation's public schools.

Last year, for our graduation ceremony, an academically accomplished young woman was asked to speak. Her story was quite amazing by all accounts; she came from a significantly broken family, her mother dealing with drug addiction and a string of bad boyfriends, her father completely absent. I remember reluctantly dropping her off at her home one time; the sagging roof, the plastic over the windows. It just didn't seem the place one would leave a child.

And yet this girl thrived, nurtured by a church family and a school that encouraged rather than opposed her faith. And for the graduation ceremony, she requested that she be able to say a prayer rather than give a speech; a request that administrators, not bound by the 9th District Court, happily allowed. What preceded was the most beautiful prayer I think I have ever heard, one that brought tears to the eyes of the most skeptical; its power being primarily in the life of a young woman whose experience had obviously exceeded the expectations of her circumstance.

It is ironic, that in our age a relativism where truths are thought to be mere personal expressions, people are allowed to express in our schools anything they percieve to be true so long as they don't really believe that it actually is.

The Da Vinci Ode, Part Deux

This is the second part of the two part talk I did on the Da Vinci Code, this time discussing the reliability of the four Gospels. I know, it's already old news, but I did it two weeks ago and forgot to post.

 Audio here.

A Place for shame

A recent article reported in the Agape press centered around the current practice of a group in Indiana of posting pictures of patrons of one 'adult' store in order to shame them into avoiding the place, and presumably, having the ultimate effect of closing the shop down.

The posting of pictures was just one part of the battle, which also included 24 hour protests.

At issue in a recent discussion group was whether it was 'Christ-like' to publicly shame pornography patrons by posting pictures of them on the internet; as one poster said, "This could potentially cause someone alot of embarassment, psychological distress, and pain, which doesn't strike me as the best way to spread the gospel.".

One wonders if 'spreading the gospel' requires a casual acceptance of the intrusions of adult industry juggernaut into our cities, neighborhoods and homes.

And that is where we need to be clear; the Goliath in this battle is the pornography industry. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that subjugates tens of thousands of young men and women to the most pernicious of activities; the buying and selling of their bodies. It is prostitution once removed. It is protected by numerous court cases, and is ubiquitous in its availability. It reaches easily into every American home via the internet and for other forms of 'adult' entertainment not easily transmissible over cable lines there are numerous legal outlets in every major city, and a number of not so major ones.

To the discerning and thoughtful it's damage is readily apparent; the entrapment of millions of men in addiction, the destruction of marriages, the scarring of children exposed to lies enticingly presented by the pornography moguls.

This industry has relied in recent years on two things; the anonymity of its customers, and the increasing public acceptance of deviant behaviors.

Indeed, those who would never defend the activities of the pornography industry seem intent on protecting the people who contribute a few dollars at a time to its continued existence.

What of the point that Jesus was above shaming the unrighteous?

While Jesus of course notably loved and reached out sinners, he also seemed intent on publicly vilifying the unrepentant and hypocritical. Scribes, lawyers, Sadducees, Pharisees, money changers, would be stone casters, and even his disciples came under public rebuke when necessary. Indeed, he actually voiced a methodology by which those who failed to repent of there behaviors would be subject to increasingly public pressures.

And of course, John the Baptist, the harbinger of Christ, notably lost his head for publicly shaming Herod for being involved in what amounted to an adulterous relationship with his brother's wife.

So I am not so sure the distaste displayed by some Christians against the protestors is wholly warranted; indeed, I would say their outrage against the growing sexual industry is much too subdued.

Does this mean that Jesus would have stood outside a porn shop snapping pictures of the patron's comings and goings? Probably not; but then again he might very well have cleared such a building with a scourge for corrupting the lives of people whom he loved – an action which in this day and age might get him jail time, and in an earlier age gotten him … well, crucified.

The sociology of influence

I wrote below about the battle that recently occurred in Kentucky over religious liberties, and about how responses typically line up; the fears of marginalizing the irreligious with public displays of religious sentiment, and the fears of the religious that their rights are being suppressed.

  In such discussion it often comes down to what are essentially political considerations; that is what our political laws and rights allow us to do. Because our religious liberties spring primarily from a very simple constitutional structure, that is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", ideas about it are many and varied. A good part of the court's time has been devoted to settling the issue, with little success over these last two hundred years.  

In discussions about religious liberties, I tend to take a slightly different approach to the issue, which is often confusing to some. I think the political left in our country has succeeded in making the issue primarily a political one; and as much as they have, they have succeeded in limiting religious expression in the public venue. I don't think it is primarily a political issue, but a sociological  one. Now up front I will admit both the political and sociological sciences are difficult frameworks by which to conduct discussions, both of them being 'soft sciences', that is studies that can't be readily conducted with in the confines of the lab (which would be expected, as they both concern human choices and the ways our societies interact; one can't exactly haul 21st century America into a lab on campus, can one?) and which don't lend themselves to readily available quantification.  

Nonetheless they are important frameworks by which to consider issues in our society, albeit radically different ones. Politics concerns itself primarily with the distribution of power and methods by which decisions are made in our society; in short, who wins, and who loses; or more properly, as Laswell  put it, "who gets what, when, where, and how". Sociology though concerns itself with our social lives; with the behavior of humans as they interact with each other, the formation of relationships and communities. They are related, but take different approaches.

  I think in the early part of the 21st century, evangelicals have allowed themselves to become defined in our society politically. I think this has happened because they have followed the secular left's lead in dealing with our societies ills; we have approached them politically. Whether we are talking abortion, or gay rights, or public expression of prayer, both the secular left and the religious right have battled within political institutions for power. By in large, the left has won in this arena; and the reason they have is because political solutions are really about acquisitions of power, and ultimately (despite popular perception) believers in Christ aren't by and large concerned about acquiring secular power.

  We are (or should be) concerned however with the sociology of our country; that is, they way humans interact and relate to one another. It is quite obviously a primary concern of our Creator, who established both societies (like Israel) and the means by which they would live, as well as commissioning communities (the Church) and structure with which they would relate. Obviously Jesus was concerned with human interaction and behavior, as exemplified in the Sermon on the Mount  and the parable of the Good Samaritan . Our country springs in large part from the influence of such early believing communities.  

Now I don't mean to say we should ignore politics all together; I think it is very important for us as good citizens to be informed and involved in our political processes. Indeed, I have spent a number of years doing just that. That involvement has allowed me to see first hand the danger;  the danger of becoming political beings, seen primarily through the lens of a set of political issues. As much this is so, I think we lose influence in our society. We may stop gay marriage until the next election, but we will also be seen primarily as the political group that must lose power because they oppose gay marriage.  

And that brings us back to the Kentucky revolt. I think that action came closer to what we need to be doing with a sociological rather than political approach. Rather than continue to fight the issue through the courts, the students just lived the way their community always had; they prayed. They didn't say, "this is our right", they just prayed, saying in effect, this is who we are; this is how we live, this makes our community what it is, and they acted accordingly. I think Christians on the whole could learn much from this; we need to stop trying to seek to have rights or political power granted to us, and start living according to the faith that we say we have. We pray, we celebrate God, we love our neighbor, we oppose what is evil; this is who we are, this is the way we interact - you can vote us out of office, but you cannot diminish us or the way we live in this society.

The Da Vinci Ode

I spoke recently at our church about the Da Vinci Code, introducing it's themes and it's foundation in Gnosticism. The audio is available here. Be kind.

Fides scientia

I have been, for as long as I can remember, a science geek.

I don't know if I was born that way, or if I am just the product of  some unique environmental factors but I am certain it was a tendency encouraged by my parents. One of my earliest memories is of my father calling excitedly for my mother so she could hear me spell zoology. Another time, when I was still quite young, our wonderful neighbor Mrs. Schaeffer had a party for the neighborhood kids (she was known for having fun little parties for no particular reason) where kids could come dressed according to what they wanted to be when they grew up. I came as a pterodactyl.

Of particular interest to me was paleontology and biology; I was an avid reader early on, and my parents fed my habit with sets of encyclopedias – first the popular World Book Encyclopedia, then later a 20 volume set of the Encyclopedia of Animal life (written, interestingly, in the King's english – which to this day will still occasionally causes me to give certain words their British spelling, like colour and labour), as well as the entire Time-Life Nature library. 

One of my particular favorites in the Time-Life set was the volume Early Man. The volume included the obligatory multi-page centerfold timeline of the march of human evolution from a small ape-like ancestor to modern humans, as well as numerous illustrations of the same ancestors struggling for survival against hyenas, other proto-humans, and starvation, causing them to develop tools to hunt mammoths and protect themselves against predators. It was all so convincing.

I think it was around that time science, in particular, the study of evolution, became something more to me than a science theory; it became a faith. By faith, I mean it became something that I held to be true about life, something more than just a process, but rather something that explained why mankind was here, and where we might be going.

As I got older, and increasingly discouraged about the state of humanity – the desruction of the environment, the potential for cataclysmic war, the greed and hatred I saw around me, evolution also gave me hope. Bouyed by science popularizers like Sagan,  Asimov and Clarke, as well as the science fiction they wrote, like Childhood's End and the movie that shared it's themes, 2001 a Space Odyssey, I began to see evolutionary theory as the great hope of mankind. Just as we were once primordial ooze, and became human, so to we might overcome our earthly troubles and inherit the stars.

As a result, what little faith I might have had in God was relegated to agnosticism; I wasn't particularly hostile to the idea a god might exist, it just didn't seem to matter all that much.

Occasionally I would run into a backward thinking person who still held to the idea that God created the world and that some evidence for this existed; if I didn't automatically dismiss the person as uneducated or hopelessly wedded to some outlandish religious notions, I might attempt to dialogue. It usually wasn't long before it became a debate - and I loved to debate; particularly when my faith was being called into question. I rarely found it difficult however to knock down most of their ideas.

In 1982 I began my University career as a biology major, with plans to go on to veterinary school. It just so happened that around the same time a rather radical proposal had been made on campus; a professor of engineering, Dr. John Patterson, had proposed at a department meeting that any student who proclaimed a belief that God created the world should be denied a science degree. In addition to his teaching job, Prof. Patterson was also a widely known and very outspoken atheist – and his proposal was made in response to what he saw as the threat of creationism invading campus. Of course the proposal, once made public, created a furor on campus, with debates going on in the student paper and among the faculty and staff. I was rather amazed that even at the University level some still questioned evolution; indeed, I was becoming friends with someone who did, a fact I attributed to his small town upbringing.

But something else was happening that year; I was beginning to realize that whatever faith I had in nature, it wasn't sufficient to satisfy deep personal longings for meaning and purpose and change. While evolution might hold out some hope for the future of mankind, it held little hope for me personally; we might grow as a species, but I continued to fail even my own standards and expectations. I was as greedy and selfish as anyone else, and change seemed beyond me.

The same friend whose science I dismissed had an answer when it came to purpose and change, and that answer was Jesus Christ. Though I had early on dismissed Christianity, I couldn't deny my friend's life – or the joy and love and peace I saw in it. After nearly a year of wrangling with myself, and with a growing understanding of who Christ was and the reality of His existence, I surrendered my life to Christ, transferring my faith from a belief in the power of nature and myself to a faith in Christ.

That surrender, while it brought about dramatic changes in me, didn't alleviate all the questions I had. I still had a niggling feeling about the accuracy of Scripture, at least as much as it seemed to contradict my understanding of science. Thus, a lot of my twenty-plus years as Christian has been involved with considering the intersection of science and Scripture, and as a result, a lot of what I will consider here will concern that as well – my science geekdom remains unabated, so my apologies ahead of time to those whose interests lie elsewhere; you will have to endure the occasional technical discussion.  

Space to worship

Interesting piece from the Pakistan Daily Times about the dillemas of being a Muslim in space. From the article:

How do Muslim astronauts pray in space? Malaysia’s National Space Agency is holding a conference to consider such questions as the country prepares to send its first citizen into orbit. A nationwide competition in the majority-Muslim country has narrowed the field to four astronaut candidates, three of whom are Muslims. Two will eventually be trained and sent into space by Russia, and Malaysia’s space agency – Angkasa – said it had been scratching its head over how Muslim rituals could be carried out properly…

The astronaut will also visit the International Space Station, which circles the earth 16 times in 24 hours, so another thorny question will be: How to pray five times a day as required by Islam, she said. Working out the direction of Mecca while hovering above the earth will also prove challenging.

Muslims, per their faith, are required to face Mecca (Islam's holiest site, a city in Saudi Arabia) five times a day – hard to do when Mecca is moving constantly beneath your feet.

The dilemma faced by the the Malaysian Muslim reminds me about Jesus' conversation with the women at the well:

John 4:19 – 4:24 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. "You worship what you do not know ; we worship what we know , for salvation is from the Jews. "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." 

While Jesus' words here may not have been intended to address the dilemmas of a space traveling believers, they are relevant nonetheless – our worship centers not on a particular place or methodology, but on a person, Jesus Christ, who is always present and available to us as His children.  

Even if we find ourselves hurtling through space at several thousand miles per hour.