the truth shall set you free

Bill McKibben has a piece in the August issue of Harper’s Magazine entitled The Christian Paradox:

America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture.

Ours is among the most spiritually homogenous rich nations on earth. Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish. It is true that a smaller number of Americans—about 75 percent—claim they actually pray to God on a daily basis, and only 33 percent say they manage to get to church every week.

85 percent? That doesn’t exactly jive with the concept of a strait and narrow way. Of course, only 33% “manage” to abide by the clear command to worship with other Christians, which solidifies the point; we can call ourselves Christians all day long, but who are we fooling? This is the behavior that calcifies non-Christians’ stance against Christ: hypocrisy.

Then again, it all boils down to the fact that Jesus knows the difference:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

When writing about atheism and evolution, I often attack the scientific community as a whole, primarily because the evolutionary model is accepted by the majority. However, such a generalization fails to recognize a large portion of scientists (up to 40%) who actually believe in God:

…and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Science Resurrects God, The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997)

What’s more encouraging than scientists who already believe in God are those that are discovering God with each new scientific breakthrough. Their realizations are inspiring, and display honesty that is unfortunately rare among many scientists today.

That said, I’m going to post some quotes (weekly? monthly? I don’t know.) from astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, cosmologists and more, that show an awakening to the idea of God in the elegance of their discoveries.

This first quote is one of my favorites. Physicist Robert Jastrow (a self-proclaimed agnostic) says this:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

UPDATE: Here is the full collection of scientists’ quotes.

I recently published an essay in response to Jeff Sharlet’s article in Rolling Stone entitled, The Young & The Sexless. Within a few days I had a response from one of the girls in the article (Anna) and Jeff Sharlet himself. The discourse that took place in the comment section turned out to be more interesting than the essay itself.

Jeff took issue with a number of things I said, including his and Rolling Stone’s motivation in publishing the article. I know that Sharlet isn’t associated with Rolling Stone, so I probably shouldn’t have lumped them together as I did; however, the issue remains that Rolling Stone has no interest in featuring Christianity as a positive cultural influence. It would simply be working against the identity they’ve developed from the start.

Sharlet questions my “scripture history”, though, and I thought his statements deserved a response beyond the comment section. I know that Jeff isn’t really one to debate, but I also know that he will, so his responses to my criticism are certainly welcome. Here’s what he said:

Your scripture history — oy. First, Christ didn’t “say” anything in Matthew — Matthew wrote that Gospel well after Christ died. Secondly, nobody started practicing chastity because Christ said so — Jews already practiced chastity, at least in theory. Love Christ all you want, but he didn’t invent chastity. Finally, all historical evidence points to the contrary of your assertion. A few early communities of followers of Christ (remember, they weren’t “Christians” until later) did start practicing radical chastity as an interpretation of Christ’s, and Paul’s, message — so radical, in fact, that they left their families. As the historian Peter Brown — acknowledged by believing and non-believing biblical scholars as the authority on this subject — points out, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was designed to DISCOURAGE such radical chastity, on the grounds that it was upsetting the social order.

Thereafter, chastity became a fairly minor part of the Christian program for several centuries. Very few Christians would have practiced it, even before marriage. There have been revivals of such morality, but they’ve been brief. Take the most famous American examples, the Puritans and the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s. During both periods, out of wedlock birth rates were anywhere from 10 to 20%. And those are just the pregnancies.

I’m not arguing against chastity — not here, anyway — but rather, the self-righteous assumption that most Christians really practice it.

My first impression when reading this was “this guy is regurgitating things he has been told about the Bible by someone else who had been told something about the Bible. It certainly doesn’t come across as someone who has taken a look inside for himself.

First of all, you’re right on something; Matthew recorded what Christ said in his gospel. I never explicitly said that Christ “invented” chastity; in fact, I specifically said he was reiterating the place for sex as it was set forth “from the beginning” (Matthew 19; Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 22). If we go with an strict interpretation of the scriptures, John 1 explains that Christ was integral from the very beginning. So I suppose you’re wrong; Christ did invent chastity.

Secondly, you say that “all historical evidence points to the contrary of [my] assertion”, yet you provide no such evidence. What evidence do you reference when asserting that followers of Christ weren’t called “Christians” until later? Luke records in Acts 11:26 that “…the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” This is well within the first century AD. This is really beside the point, though.

Chastity was not new to Christians, nor did it become increasingly “radical” as you purport. We know that the Mosaic law forbade any form of sexual intercourse outside of marriage (this includes heterosexual, homosexual and even bestial) [See Deuteronomy 22 and following]. These concepts are simply restated in the New Testament, and logically this resulted in adherence, not a “radical interpretation.” In fact, there never has been much room for interpretation. Luke writes to abstain from fornication (Acts 15:29; 21:25), and Paul is clear on the subject (Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18), emphasizing that young virgins should marry to avoid it (1 Corinthians 7:2). See also Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4 and Revelation 2:20-22.

Peter Brown may be respected, but I know of nothing more authoritative than the text itself.

Jeff, your claim that chastity became a “minor part of the Christian program” is hard to believe, not only because you provide no evidence. Christians (being humans, after all) have fallen short of purity on a variety of moral issues (see Romans 3:23). However, I challenge you to provide any historical verification that chastity was ever downplayed by the church. That just doesn’t jive.

Consider this:

The Apostolic Fathers: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (2nd Century, AD) all quoted Christ and the Apostles, and reiterated with statements of their own, exhorting readers to abstain from fleshly lusts, particularly fornication and adultery. Theophilus doesn’t make it sound “fairly minor”, in my opinion:

And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man’s wife with our eyes to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, who was a king and a prophet, said: ‘Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee: make straight paths for your feet.’ And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: ‘Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’ ‘And he that marrieth,’ says [the Gospel], ‘her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.’ Because Solomon says: ‘Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to a married woman shall not be innocent.’” (Chapter XIII, of Chastity)

Or, St. Augustine (AD 397):

The mists of passion steamed up out of the puddly concupiscence of the flesh, and the hot imagination of puberty, and they so obscured and overcast my heart that I was unable to distinguish pure affection from unholy desire.

…If only there had been someone to regulate my disorder and turn to my profit the fleeting beauties of the things around me, and to fix a bound to their sweetness, so that the tides of my youth might have spent themselves upon the shore of marriage!” (Confessions, Book II.ii)

…and so on for centuries, yes, until now.

I urge you to provide the “historical evidence” for any of the claims you’ve made. Please, for if I am wrong, am I ready to admit it. I am particularly interested in seeing some evidence (from you, or Peter Brown) that Paul was discouraging sexual purity in any way. I have a feeling Timothy understood Paul differently.

There are many reasons I am a Creationist. Of course, a lot of my views stem from “faith” that the Bible is God’s true word. But what is faith? Hebrews 11:1 says it is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” This is, of course, a perfect description of Christian faith, a concept consistently ridiculed by the atheistic community. However, it seems that in the realm of cosmology, atheistic scientists are operating on the same type of “faith” as those they so often judge ignorant. After all, honest scientists admit that ignorance is the driving force behind scientific discovery. That said, a theory such as the Big Bang - the most widely-accepted explanation for the origin of the universe - is to scientists “the evidence of things not seen.” That’s right, faith.

My views concerning the universe are indeed shaped by faith. My rejection of the evolutionary model, however, is rooted in science, and my fundamental disagreements with such theories are based on common sense and plain reason.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:20 that “[God’s] invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So [we] are without excuse.” As the relatively new “Intelligent Design” movement argues, the complexity of our world, our bodies and our minds cannot be explained by mere random mutations. But teleological arguments are nothing new; in fact, the “watchmaker” analogy was drawn as early as 75 BC by Cicero, and he didn’t even have evolutionary theory to argue against.

Teleological arguments - though powerful - fail to reach the core of the issue. I can look at my body, my circulatory system, my respiratory system - all of my interdependent systems - and laugh at the concept that it happened by “accident.” I grew up touting the teleological anecdote of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and, by chance, leaving a perfectly constructed Boeing 747 amidst the debris. This is a powerful analogy, because of it’s absurdity. Even then, a 747 is made up of a lot fewer parts than the human body, or for that matter, the entire symbiotic universe.

Yet, such an argument overshoots the issue. For example, the 747 anecdote assumes that the necessary parts for a 747 must have been present in the junkyard in order to be assembled - even by chance. This is the same assumption that evolutionary scientists make when building upon the work of Darwin. Science has gone back as far as they can imagine - the beginning of everything, or singularity - and given us the Big Bang theory. According to Wikipedia, the Big Bang was “an explosion of space and matter, starting from an enormously dense and hot state at some finite time in the past.” Not unlike our tornado-built airplane, the Big Bang ignores a very important question. Where did the original components come from?

Cosmologists move forward in time developing the theory and it’s off-shoots with no regard to this fundamental problem. The fact is, the Big Bang demands one of two un-scientific (impossible) conclusions:

1. Matter existed eternally and at some point in infinite time condensed, overheated and exploded, OR
2. Matter spontaneously originated from asbolutely nothing, then condensed, overheated and exploded.

Option 1 cannot be the case simply because the theory itself claims that it occurred within a “finite time-frame.” In addition, science does not support the concept of eternal matter or the spontaneous generation of matter. How, then, is the Big Bang scientifically plausible? Quite simply, it isn’t.

Physicist Michio Kaku, the co-founder of the String Field theory, seems to allow for the same nonsense in his hyper-spacial theories. Though I do highly recommend his book, Hyperspace, I am surprised and frustrated by the absurdity of his thoughts on the Big Bang:

One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of “wormholes” and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally “cracked” into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the “quantum leap” to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The cur rent expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe.” (emphasis added)

From all of this comes 3 simple questions, the basis for my refusal to adopt the faith of modern cosmology:

1. If the universe “begins” completely empty, when and how did it come to have something in it?
2. Did this inexplicable “first matter” contain all of the known elements? If not, how did the others come to be?
3. Conceding either the eternality or spontaneous generation of matter, at what point (and how) did inorganic matter suddenly become living?

Scientists need to be asking these questions. Unfortunately, many are building vast theories upon a foundation fundamentally flawed.
__
For more discussion on the scientific weakness of the Big Bang, I recommend these articles, as well:

• http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635
• http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

According to The Telegraph, BBC News has begun editing out the word “terrorist” from its coverage of the London Underground and bus bombings.

This editorial decision is justified by guidelines which state that credibility is undermined by “careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments.” According to the BBC, “the word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding” and should be “avoided.”

Rod Liddle, former editor of the Today program has said that the BBC is guilty of “institutionalized political correctness” when covering Muslims, particularly. The interesting thing about all of this is that their removal the word “terrorist” is more of an emotional value judgment than the use of it. What happened in London was terrorism. Was it not?

If the BBC is truly instituting “political correctness” regarding Muslims, then their avoidance of the word “terrorism” says more about their views than biased reporting. That is, if they seek to protect the Muslim community by nixing the word terrorist, it becomes clear that they think of Muslims when they use the word.

Here’s the kicker: Al Qaeda wants credit for the attack. So, is this really an issue of “emotion” or “values”? Seems to me it’s more about fear of reporting the facts. The BBC knows that this attack has the potential to rally support for the “War on Terror”, a war that the Beeb would love for it’s readership to consider unnecessary. This is a simple case of editorializing the news, and it’s bad journalism.

Jeff Sharlet of TheRevealer.org recently published an article in Rolling Stone entitled, The Young and the Sexless. The article discusses young Christians and abstinence, and though it’s an interesting read, it is largely misleading. The sub-headline reads, “A new generation of young men and women is embracing celibate life.”

Celibate has a very specific meaning: giving up sexual relationships (including marriage) for life. That certainly isn’t what these young people plan to do. I realize that such a criticism is pedantic, but it certainly sets the stage for the rest of the article. Sharlet begins:

What if the true face of the Christian right in America is not that of Dr. James Dobson or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson; not that of an aging, comb-over preacher orange with pancake makeup, smiling orca rows of ungodly white teeth on The O’Reilly Factor or Hardball? Nor that of spittle-flecked Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, roaring that God hates fags? What if the true face of the Christian right is, instead, that of a twenty-four-year-old religious-studies graduate student at New York University?

This introduction is telling, and the entire peice builds from here. Sharlet argues that “Chastity is a new organizing principle of the Christian right”, in other words, politically motivated. Though he certainly has a case by describing a segment of the “Christian right” this way, highlighting abstinence in a political context ignores the majority of young Christians who practice abstinence for fundamentally moral reasons - the way they have been since Christ reiterated the sanctity of marriage in Matthew 19. There’s nothing new about it.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. of The Christian Post responded to Sharlet’s article in a similar vein:

When Dunbar describes sexual abstinence as a form of rebellion, Sharlet jumps to the political sphere. As he sees it, conservative Christians are now pushing the issue of sexual abstinence in order to make “every young man and woman part of an elite virgin corps.

Clearly, Sharlet hasn’t been hanging around conservative Christians for very long. Anyone who thinks that the idea of sexual abstinence is a recent development tied to a political agenda within the Christian right just hasn’t been in touch with conservative Christianity.

Mohler is surprisingly fair, admitting that, “at times…[Sharlet] reveals interesting insights and incisive analysis… seem[ing] to understand the cultural awkwardness that comes with a commitment to sexual abstinence.” However, it seems to me that Sharlet’s apparent “understanding” and general empathetic tone has to do with those featured in the story, and not because of any value Sharlet sees in abstinence. The interesting thing about this article - perhaps the very reason it made it to the pages of Rolling Stone - is the presentation of these young men as unambiguous hypocrites. In his response, Mohler seems to miss this point completely, offering his grossly understated description of Matt Dunbar and his friends:

These young men are not total ascetics. They enjoy food and other pleasures, but they see sex as belonging to an entirely different world.

Sharlet is more honest about matters:

Matt Dunbar is a handsome young man, though his face is still ruddy with acne. He has rounded cheeks, a soul patch beneath his lips and soft eyes that hold yours like he trusts you. He’s not a prude. He will say the word “f—,” but he will never, not even in the wedding bed he hopes God has prepared for his future, embody it as a verb. He will make Christian love.

Let’s face it, Rolling Stone has an image to portray and a lifestyle to cultivate. Christianity has no place in its editorial strategy. Sharlet is a smart guy and makes sure to tell us that Matt claims to be fighting a “spiritual war against the world, against ’sensuality’” and is then quick to note:

It’s a never-ending war, and not one that can be fought alone. Which is why virgins like Dunbar tend to travel in packs, to church and to Bible studies but also to parties and even to bars. Dunbar and his friends help one another stay “pure,” which they consider “authentic.”

Authentic? I hope and pray that true Christians are as appalled by this irony as the staff at Rolling Stone are likely amused. Non-Christians don’t even bother with an attempt to say party- and bar-hopping are activities designed to help one “stay pure.” They certainly don’t buy it from a Christian’s mouth. I’m reminded of Neal Stephenson’s Diamond Age and his descripton of hypocrisy:

“. . .this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behavior - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another.”

That is exactly what Sharlet and Rolling Stone have done, and “Christians” such as Matt Dunbar are poster children for their message. These young men are doing nothing more than setting themselves up as targets; modern Christians that want to tout certain parts of scriptural morality while fully imbibing “mainstream culture.” Dunbar may be right when it comes to sex and it’s place, but he seems to have overlooked an equally important admonition:

If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (John 15:19).

Sharlet points out that their church - predominantly single men and women under 30 - is growing so fast that they won’t commit to real estate. “Not having sex means talking about it constantly,” he says, and then cites sermon titles such as “Desperate Sex Lives” and “Sex & The City.” This embodies their serious problems. The very titles of what would and should be Bible lessons are, instead, plagiarized from mainstream, sex-driven culture. It’s obvious that the purpose and desire of these youngsters - though impossible - is to serve two masters. Once again, Sharlet soaks up the inconsistency like a sponge:

Church takes place on a stage set for a play. Half of every service features the Journey band, a competent ensemble that sets hymns to grunge and emo arrangements. During my visit, I can’t take my eyes off the three female backup singers, especially a redhead on the right, swinging her hips in loose cargo pants that are nonetheless tight in the a–. She’s braless and grooving, way too sexy for church, shooting a single finger over her head — the “One Way” Jesus sign Billy Graham embraced more than thirty years ago.

Ted Olsen, of Christianity Today says that it’s about evangelism and “speaking the language of the day.” The problem with such an analysis is that evangelism never shows up in this story. Dunbar and his cronies never highlight the fact that they avoid fornication because it is morally wrong and they want to please God. It’s presented as almost entirely selfish - a temporary sacrifice for the sole reward of incredible sex. Have they forgotten the real reward? Sharlet illuminates this sex-driven religiosity in a way that sounds eerily like the promises of Mohammed:

Which is it? Is sexual chastity an old tradition, or a new counter-culture? Both, of course, but not simply because “the culture” has shifted radically left. . . . They’re not simply looking backward to the golden age that never was — they’re inventing a whole new narrative of paradise, one with sex at its heart.

The article is summed up with what Sharlet’s been getting at the entire time. He says, “Like the fundamentalists of old, today’s Christian conservatives define themselves as apart from the world, and yet the modern movement aims to enjoy its fruits. (emphasis mine)” Can Dunbar and the other “Christian hipsters” possibly be happy about this portrayal? Perhaps it’s exactly what they want - the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario - iced with the notion of purity by their adherence to a single tenet. It seems they have forgotten (or maybe they have never learned) that sex is not the only sin.