Love Wins by Rob Bell

Popular Grand Rapids, Michigan pastor Rob Bell's bestseller Love Wins has reportedly stirred up loads of controversy among conservative evangelicals, even before its release last year. And it's not hard to see why, given the book's premise.

And his opening chapter (and in the video released on Youtube beofore the release of said book),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUvw2McL8g

Bell presents to his audience the following scenario. During a church art show, one of the participants had including a quote for Mahatma Gandhi. And someone else had tacked on a note reading: Reality check: he's in hell.

"Gandhi's in hell?" Bell asks his audience, "Are we sure? Do we know this?" (page 1) He follows this up with a number of other thought-provoking and difficult questions, such as that of the self-professed atheist who dies as a teenager. To the response that "There's no hope then," Bell responds pointedly "No hope? Is that the Christian message?" (Page 3). And then there's that matter of the missionary getting a flat tire on the way to the local village. If someone dies there, is he/she forever lost?

Too many Christians would answer "yes," to that last question, I'm afraid. Why? As I've argued elsewhere the core reason for this is not really scriptural, but rather concerned with the survival of Christanity as a faith. But the reason Bell uses this example is becuase he knows that, according to our core morality (which most beleivers, evangelicals included, I'd guess, would agree is given to us by God), it would be nonsensical for God to judge someone according to standards of which s/he is simply ignorant, of no fault of his or her own. We understand this. It flies in the sense of our understanding of morality that God would not.

The example of Gandhi in hell raises an even more provocotive question. Why would a person believe that this is so? Didn't Gandhi live an exemplary life compared to most of us, including the majority of professing beleivers? The almost inevitable answer to that will run something like this: good works are not what counts. You could live the best possible life, and still not make it into heaven if you lacked the required faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, whoever wrote that is necessarily divorcing faith from works. But the book of James teaches that faith without works is dead (not a saving faith), and many places in the New Testement teaches that we will judged according to our works. The question that follows from this should be, therefore: If one is NOT a professing Christian, and one nonetheless leads a morally exemplary life, is one, therefore, one of His followers after all? I am assuming here, of course, that one is genuine, and not self-serving, in his dedication to works, as Gandhi certainly appeared to have been. One might ask if something is even possible without a conscious decison to follow Christ; I would respond that such is certainly possible if one happens at least to be seeking truth.

If one accepts the general postion regarding salvation held by evangelicals, however, did, in fact, Gandhi have enough faith to avoid the inferno? He certainly was aware of Christ and Christianity, so one must not count him among the ignorant pagans, whatever one's opinion regarding their eternal destiny might be. Gandhi is quoted as saying,"...I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew." So was this enough?

Indeed, merely inquiring if it was "enough" suggests, as does the "tire" scenario, that God allows people into heaven on the basis of technicalities, which, of course, have nothing to do with the condition of one's heart, which should be the only real criteria. But most evangelicals would disagree about Gandhi, becuase the above statement by him suggests Pluralism. And for ther Christian faith to be the Truth, none other can be on par with it. This is the real evangelical gripe against Gandhi.



And it's the same with Rob Bell. I actually found his book to be confusing in places. At times he sounds like a universalist, yet never stakes a firm position. His argument that salvation is NOT primarily about getting "how to get to heaven" (in spite of what we're commonly taught) is, I think, a point well taken. Most of us have heard that the salvation promised by Jesus Christ is all about how to get to heaven when we die. But Bell makes it clear, from his discussion of Jesus and the young rich man, that Jesus meant much more than this. In other words, our admission into the Kingdom of Heaven does NOT begin after we take our final breath in this world, but right here, right now, in accepting Him into our hearts, and through our obdedience to His teachings.

Is Bell a universalist, as his critics charge? The answer might be both "yes" and "no." He does appear to accept hell as a reality, but his general beleif seems to be that hell is remedial and corrective rather than eternal. He might, therefore, be best described as a beleiver in univeral reconciliation. Hell in the world beyond this is a reality, but we are not forever lost. If God truly wants everyone to come to Him, and he is truely all powerful, then eventually he will save everyone in the end.

Much to the chagrin of evangelicals, I might add.

There have been a number of books written, mostly by Bell's evangelical critics, in attempt to counter him. One of such book, which I've read, is God Wins by Mark Galli. Gallie argues that that hell is eternal, but the fate of certain individuals, such as ignorant pagans, is simply a mystery, but we should jut trust God that everything He does will be just. One thing I've noticed ironic about the title of this particular book is that if God des win, doesn't love win also? For is not God also love?

The following quotes form Bell's book show the God often falsely represented by evangelicals:

"A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better,” Bell writes.

“It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus.

“This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear."

Bell is right on target with these astute abservations. It is telling that many of Bell's critics (not Galli) have responded with anger. Most infamous was a tweet by John Piper, Baptist Pastor, and author of the recent book Jesus: the Only Way to God, who wrote "Rob Bell is history."

I strongly suspect, however, that Rob Bell represents the future of Christianity.

Darin Hufford's The Misunderstood God

Darin Hufford's The Misunderstood God is the book I credit for bringing me to Christ. While I've since delved into other important Christian books, and I don't have time to review every one, I felt I should at least take the time to discuss the importance of this one on this blog.

It is by the same publishers as those of The Shack, Paul Young's runaway Christian bestseller. According to one of the book's glowing enorsement quotes, it "scratches where The Shack causes one to itch."

At the time I first picked up this book in late 2009, I was still a skeptic (and a former "Christian"), who had grown disillusioned by secularism, in particular the atheist crowd on Sam Harris's forum. This book managed to dispel some long held and over-preached "truths" about God and Jesus that I've heard time and again since I was a college student. And to tell the truth, many of them helped drive me away from Jesus. Even when I considered myself a Christian and faithfully attended church and Bible study for years, it was lies like these that kept me form truely embracing the Lord. Among them:

God is angry and condemning to all those who do not beleive the "right" things about Him.

God is very proud and boastful, all thw while condemning pride as a sin.

God is vain and jealous, and demands our constant attention for his own ego.

God is emotionally insecure, and that is why he fordbids idoletry and forms of pleasure that aren't related to his worship.

And so forth. I had, unfortunately, developed a picture of God as an unfeeling, selfish jerk (perhaps the ultimate selfish jerk, if he condemned to hell for eternity those who did not worship Him, or did so in the wrong way), mostly thanks to the efforts of sincere, well-meaning Christians. This sorry portrait of god was probably not what they intended, but it is the definite impression of Him that I recieved from their counseling.

It is just this picture of God, I've since come to beleive, that Satan sells to us. The name "Satan" actually means "slanderer." And it is Satan's full intent to slander God. What better way to turn His children against Him than this?

Hufford helps to explode many of the slanderous myths Satan has used to tarnish the image of God.

Another very important issue Hufford brings up is one of sex. Why is it so taboo according to religion? As a secularist, I had developed a very liberal attitude toward sexuality. Like most on the Left, I saw sexuality as essentially liberating, and I think it shows in the mammoth Burroughs pastiche I wrote Jahlanna of Pellucidar. However, Hufford's recounting of the day his own father left his family, without a single word to him, I found heartbreaking. His father had fallen in "love" with a secretary at work. The reason for this gross act of immorality? The supposedly liberating sex drive. Because it, the author had his family torn apart and was forced to cope with years of emotional anguish. Sex is a primal instinct to reproduce. It is part of our genes; as such, it is not inherently evil; but it IS concerned with self-progation, and thus, almost by definition, unconcerned with the well-being of others.

And THIS is why Jesus preached about adultry in such overtly harsh terms. The libido is a drive, that, like fire, needs to be tamed and condition, lest it rage out of control and do terrible damage to ourselves and to others.

We tend to forget that sometimes, though. It is often implied that God forbids sex out of marraige because of His supposedly fragile ego, and/or that he is terribly jealous of any form of pleasure we humans may enjoy. In other words, it' all about Himself.

But we've got it backwards.

It's really all about us. God does not prohibit pleasure to feed his own ego to to spoil our fun. We really ARE his children, and as such God's sole purpose is keep us from harm, and from bringing harm upon one another. It's been an unfortunate but common argument among the New Atheists that Christians are concerned with morality apart from human well-being. And the most tragic thing is that a lot of Chistians do tend to define morality in exactly such a way. But Darin Hufford has helped to demonstrate why this is not so, and should not be so.

One interesting passage in this book has it that when the author asked some pastors what if, in heaven, they found Jesus conversing with members of other faiths, and with homosexuals, that would be angered.

Angered? Really? Such a response, especially from pastors, demonstrates wit utmost clarity that there is indeed a common train of thought among beleivers that regards Christianity is an exclusive club where outsides are not permitted. And such a picture of Christ contrasts strikingly with a hideously unforgiving passage I read long ago, penned by the late Christian author Roger Elwood, in regard to the fate of homosexuals.

But perhaps Hufford's strongest point in regard to our relationship to God is that He is a being of pure Love, and as such, the emotion of fear is totally antithetical to His nature. "God does not delight in fear tactics," Hufford writes. "Love simply never thinks this way. When we use fear either to convert people or to get them to follow rules, we are partnering with evil. All fear is evil. God does not delight in the use of evil to manipulate His children into salvation or repentance p. 132). And even more to the point, "Threats of hell were never meant to be the argument that drew people to God. The Holy Spirit draws people to God.(p.133).

Bravo, Hufford.

It was Holy Spirit that drew me to God. The same applies to any and all genuine conversions of which I am aware. The insistence upon hell to frighten converts has the almost inevitable (however unintended by evangelicals) side effect of slandering God. While my friend from an Arminian blog insists that a totally forgiving God "guts Missionary work," that argument is vald only is one is attempting to use fear to gain converts.

Hufford's book has, perhaps unsurprisingly, stirred up contoversy, as expected, mainly among the more orthodox crowd, the main criticism being that the book focuses entirely on God's love while ignoring His wrath.

While I disagree with these initial criticisms, I do beleive that Hufford emphasis on God as Love is indeed flawed in places. He writes, "God protects you because He loves you. Not because you are being good and following the rules" (page156). I think that statement is good, as far as it goes. However, it is not too difficult to discern how this statement can be taken too far. And this I beleive Hufford does when when he tells his readers "Know for sure that God will never, ever, lift His hand of protection from you! Your security is sacred to Him" (page 157).

This sounds virutally the same as the most common argument used by proponants of Eternal Security. And in fact I have since discovered that Hufford indeed subscribes to a soft form (at least I think it is a soft form) of OSAS. While Hufford's point that fear of a wrathful, vengeful God disrupts genuine trust in Him is a good one, it must be said that a caring father (as Hufford's argument assumes God must be) will also not take an all-permissive attitude of anything goes toward His children. There WILL be limits set, and there were be punishments, althought these will be corrective, not eternal, in nature. Another flaw in Hufford's beleif in the security of salvation is the same as other OSAS propoants: merely because God would never remove his hand of protection from his children does NOT mean his children are therefore held in his grasp against their will; on the contrary, any sheep is perfectly free to stray from the fold by his own design.

This particular breach of reason paralells OSAS preacher Charles Stanley's use of the parable of the Prodical Son to show God's unconditional love for all his children, seemingly ignoring that blatant fact that the son was perfectly free to squander his inherentice in the first place.

Nevertheless, Hufford's book desserves needed credit for exploding some dangerous and pervasive falsehoods about the nature of God.

"If you look to the flame of love you have in your heart for your child and consult it," Hufford tells us, "you will know how to act and react. Try it" (page 206).

I have and it works for me.

Burning Down the Shack by James B. De Young

There is a big Hollywood film which portrays religious conservatives in a very bad light.

The movie paints these pious, outwardly godly folks a self-styled, pretentious hypocrites. The basic plot of the film itself is that these conservative beleivers go so far as to essentially commit murder in their pursuit of power and maintan the social order.

Knowing the worldview of most of progressive Hollywood, there is very little which may seem striking about this.

What you might not have guessed is that the movie I am refering to is none oher than The Passion of the Christ, the multi-million hit directed by Mel Gibson, applauded by the majority of Christians, and panned for alleged anti-Semitism (and even homo-eroticism)by progressives.

My point in bringing this up is a fact that most Christians would (and ought to a bit, in my opinion) make them rather uncomfortable, and also one I really never considered until recently.

The Pharisees, those pious leaders of the Jewish church, who spelled the crucifixion of Jesus, who did not recognize their own Messiah, who were repeatedly taken to task for their legalism, were....conservatives.

That's right. In the Pharisees, Jesus was not up against liberal humanists seeking to displace faith with secularism, but very pious religious leaders who saw Jesus not only as a threat to themselves but to their faith and tradition. Christ was in fact sacrificed on the very altar of tradition, so to speak. Even, perhaps especially, Saul of Tarsis beleived he was faithfully serving God in persecuting Christ's followers.

What makes me so uncomfortable about this as an unborthodox Christian ( I still consider myself largely to be an unorthodox conservative--there's too much about liberalism I still not endorse), is that the basic concerns of conservative Christiandom in general appear very much to be grounded in the same fear that motivated the Pharisees.

What fears are these?

Fear of social change and the errosion of tradition.

I already know the ojection to this: the Pharisees did not even recognize the Savior, while today's conservatives are very much on the side of Jesus against the tide of secularism. Right?

The problem, however, is not so much the values and beleifs conservatives subscribe to as it is their underlying motivation. Indeed, most conservatives, if asked, would proclaim that they are placing God and Christ above everything else, while their opponants are relying merely on human opinion. Many, if not mot, would, I beleive, sincerely beleive this to be the wholehearted truth. But remember: Fear of the future, fear of change, and the tendency to favor the old ways over the new is a deep human instinct. It is encoded deep in our genes. Thus, it is very easy idolize tradition itself, not as a means of serving Christ, but as means of passing the torch to the next generation regardless if it is "moral" or not.

Consider the abortion issue: Abortion is nowhere prohibted by scripture. So why is this particular issue so often portrayed in a strictly religious framework?

And though homosexuality is clearly condemned by Scripture, why the fuss over these two particular issues?

Answer: both homosexuality (in particular gay marraige) and abortion constitute a real or percieved threat to the nuclear family and to tradition.

My last three posts should demonstrate the dire need to keep the faith alive as expressed by religious conservatives.

And this brings me (at last) to the topic at hand, Burning Down the Shack by James De Young.

I have not yet read Paul Young's The Shack, so am unable to access it on it's own merits.

However, it is more than obvious that virtually all the criticism leveled at The Shack is by religious conservatives, and almost everything taken to task is a percieved departure from orthodox thought.

The Shack has been also applauded vigorously by Christians who found it spiritually enlightening and faith affirming, calling some to a spirtitual awakening. It may indeed have actually broght some to Jesus. I, myself, came to Christ late in 2009 after reading Darren Hufford's The Misunderstood God, also by the same publishing company which Paul Young started up for The Shack. It, too, paints a picture of God that is at odds wih many conservative pastors. It, too, challenges the image of God as cruel, vindictive, proud and punishing.

De Young's chief criticism of The Shack is that it promotes universalism, the beleif that all will now, or eventually, be saved. This was the view held by fantasist George MacDonald, a friend and correspondant of C. S. Lewis, who held him in great esteem. Lewis himself was an inclusivist, no a universalist, as is sometimes falsely assumed. Lewis himself is (in general) widely praised by conservatives in spite of his lacking orthodoxy in certain areas.

A confession that I must make at this point: I myself am attracted to idea of universalism, and at the same time I fear it somewhat. Not, as conservative evangelicals might charge for the "right reasons," but becuase I realize that being a "universalist" opens the door to harsh criticism by evangelicals. Universalism is just a little too unorthodox for comfort. It also, indeed, appears to be directly conbtradicted by scripture, even if one interprets the Lake of Fire judgement as annhilation. The inclusicism of Lewis is a much more comfortable a place to be theologically. When I once prayed as to the eternal (or noneternal) nature of hell, I actually drew a blank, even though the Lord convinced me that hell was real. However, the answer I recieved to a more recent prayer suggested universal reconcilliation: in other words though some may be lost, they will not remain lost: God will save every soul eventually.

There are however, more possibilities than just these two; perhaps God will try to save all, but will only end up saving some; or perhaps it is not predetermned who and how many souls will in the end be saved.

The one thing I do reject, however, and this is in departure to most religious conservatives, is that God sentences his children to everlasting punishment for finite sins.

But this is the conservative postion, sad to say, and it is rapidly losing ground in the modern world. That The Shack has evidently brought so many souls to Christ, and that it is an unorthodox book to boot, is powerful testimony to this.

What's wrong with universalism? The answer, for De Young, is simple: it doesn't scare people enough. However, I would submit that someone who continues to sin under the beleif that they'll still saved has not truely experienced a rebirth in Christ!

Another major issue which De Young levels at The Shack is the author's apparent condemnation for any and all institutions, whether the government, tradition or marraige, to the point of demonizing them. Since I've not read The Shack, I cannot verify this, though if so, Paul Young has gone more than a bit too far. Still, it is certainly legitimate to criticize tradtional institutions, and the church, in particular DOES have much to answer for in driving people away form God and Christ. Young claims that Satan works through false teachers who claim the gospel. Undoubtedly that's true. However, there's also little doubt he works through conservative churches as well, since this is where most of today's young people are disenfranchised with Christianity. Also, though deYoung credits Jesus for establishing the church among his followers (I would submit that it was still very far from being an "institution"), he seems to forget that Jesus was also very critical of the church as it existed in his own day:

Mathew 5:6 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

This sounds very unlike what one would expect from an upholder of church tradition!

Another point of attack by deYoung is Paul Young's depiction of the Holy Trinity as multi-racial, and in particular, of God the Father as a large Black woman. Now doing so appears to be (and perhaps is) a deliberate PC attempt to present a multicultural version of the Trinity. Clearly, in depicting the Father as both female and Black (virtually opposite of how God the Father is tradtionally depicted)he is playing on gender roles and expectations of readers. But is this, on the whole, a bad thing? I would say that it is not. God the father is capable of taking on any from He wants. He has no true gender, and, I would argue, lacks any true shape at all. Young may well be reinventing our perception of God and the Trinity to fit our evolving faith and moral knowledge. There is no real fault to be found here, unless you percieve change in itself to be a bad thing. Does De Young find the tradtional paintings of God looking like Moses or Dumbledore to be offensive?

There are, however, two areas where I find myself siding with De Young and other evangelicals against The Shack. One is his observation that the Devil has been virtually ommitted from Young's book. If so, I agree with him: this is a serious ommission indeed. Maybe Young will get around to Satan in a future book; perhaps not. However, Satan is a very dire force in the world today, in the churches, and in billions of individual lives. According to De Young, it is a hallmark of universalism to beleive that Satan either does not exist, or will eventually reform and take his place among the Godhead. I've noticed this--Phillip Gulley, in his book Evolving Faith (which I find enlightening on many of his arguments) says precisely this. Whether or not Satan will ever repent, however, his reality, given the amount of suffering in the world, should be evident to Paul Young. The existence of evil and Satan is the very reason for Christ's sacrifice. the fact that Young's protagonist has suffered a terrible tragedy indeed makes Satan's ommission a bit puzzling.

A related charge leveled by De Young is that Young's novel downplays sin, and suggests that all will be uncondtionally forgiven. Again, I do not yet know if this charge is valid; however, if so, there is indeed he implication that one is free to sin as one pleases and morality itself is undermined. While threats of hellfire may not be the most effective in this area, a change of heart, a rebirth in Christ most certainly is. Perhaps Young does not mean for his novel to downplay the seriousness of sin, but the reality of that seriousness needs to be acknowledged.

However, in a list of Paul Young's views which De Young uses to back up his charge of universalism promoted by The Shack, I find myself in agreement with many of them. Among these:

Jesus is a Lamb who would never harm or torment.

Eternal judgement is "unresonable, illogical...wicked and unjust" for a temporal judgement committed within time. Eternal Judgement is "sadist humbug."

He (Young) asserted that "God in the end is grossly unjust", and that in compariosm to Pharoah, Nero and Hitler, "The doctrine of eternal torture makes jesus a million times (italics his) more vindictive then these three put togather

Either those who teach eternal torture are extremely and brutally calloused or they do not truly beleive what they teach (italics his)

Now I don't necessarily agree with the last statement; though they often come off as indeed quite calloused, religious conservatives have very real motives in promoting such an unjust doctrine. As I've argued, such a doctrine is necessary (they beleive) in order to conserve the culture and Christianity itself. I also beleive they are very badly misguided here. Understand also that Young is refering to this cultural caricature of god here, and NOT the true god. A god who deliberatly condemns finite beingsto eternal torture is indeed a fiction, Paul Young is arguing. And I agree with him. Though I also beleive hell is real, and needs to be acknowledged, I do not credit God with creating hell or with sending people there.

So far as a torturing God is concerned, I am an athiest.

The Family by Robert Andrews

Back when I was a young college student,and still a firm conservative (in spite of some of the misgivings I'd encountered among orthodox Christian groups), I joined a Christian group which was stridently pro-life. I later took part in an on-campus protest against abortion. It was only later that I began to have some misgivings--not so much on the conservative position on abortion per se, as on the underlying motive. Back then, I had no doubt that Christian conservatives held only the highest moral imperatives in protesting abortion. I supposed at the time that the pro-life position was a concerned soley with ethics and human welfare. I did come to view certain pro-life groups--such as Randal Terry's Operation Rescue, with some suspicion; a fair-minded pro-choicer, with whom I once had a polite disagreement, DID agree with that Randal Terry, for one, was more concerned with personal power than anythin else. However, in hindsight, wouldn't people like Terry go further in politics by taking the PC, more acceptable, pro-choice position? Then, there was matter of contraception. Why weren't Christian conservatives promoting the hell out of contraception to reduce the number of abortions. But it turned most were opposed to it in almost equal measure.

Something wasn't right.

Not just about abortion and birth-control, but with the whole Christian conservative movement, including Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Which brings me to the topic at hand.

For the past few months, the Sunday School class at my church has been studying The Family: God's Weapon for Victory by Robert Andrews. As its title suggests, the book is all about the preservation of the traditional nuclear family in our pollitically correct secular culture. There are chapters included about secular influences on children such as movies and television, women's role in the family and in procreation, God's purpose for sex, the principle of purity, how to train up a child properly, among others.

More than any other book I've read thus far, The Family demonstrates with much clarity just what the real motives are behind the conservative movement, in particular the issue of reproductive choice.

It has nothing to do with ethics. And consequently, it has nothing to with morals.

You could,(and indeed some do)take a very moral position on the abortion issue--that it is taking a human life, or (in the case of contraception)at least a potential life. And I know there is at least one pro-life atheist out there, and, come to think of it, the pro-life postition is very consistent with the argument often put foreward by unbeleivers that, as there is no hereafter, life is all the more precious, and everyone should therefore have the right to enjoy it. Not many atheists actually take this position of course, and the one unbeleiving pro-lifer I mentioned was terribly treated on the forum he posted on. You can't be an atheist pro-lifer, it seems, without compromising the "orthodox" atheist position on adult reproductive autonomy. If only atheists could take a moment to realize that a pro-life postion, at least applied to themselves, might make for some formidable competition.

Which brings me to my main point in writing this. Andrews has much to say in his book, not only the importance and godliness of having children, but rearing large families. "Be fruitful and multiply, (Genesis 1:28)" is the verse mot often raised in support of producing as many tykes as possible. And why? Andrews tells his readers directly on on page 192, in regard to a former decision he and his wife made not to have any more children:

"We did not understand that children are not for us, if we want them, but, but for God, and His purpose of extending His kingdom. They are like arrows (Psalm 127:3-5), instruments of war, by which our influence can be extended to the next generation. Well-trained, with a vision for the kingdom, they will fly straight and true into the heart of the Devil. The more arrows we have, the more effectve arrows we have, the more effective we can be as warriors in the battle."

Arrows? Instruments of war? Shouldn't kids be of value because they are human, each made special by God? And moreover, because each one of them has a special "right to life?"

No, apparently not, so far as conservative envalgelicism is concerned. Worse, would the moral value of a child who decided to leave the faith as a teenager be diminished? Such instruemntal value applied to children is morally problemic to say the least, since it is very far removed from ethics.

But even more significantly, I think that raising an army for the Lord is not really the underlying objective here. Certainly, many Christians believe it's all about serving God, but that does not make it the truth.

I beleive (and what comes next may be shocking) that this whole pro-family position on the part of Christian conservatives is Darwininan to its core.

That's right: Darwinian.

How can that be, with so many Christian conservatives so adamantly opposed to Darwinism? Sure, many, in fact, claim that Darwinism influenced Hitler, and some may even beleive that, but remember, ethics is not the issue here, as pastor Andrews has made abundantly clear.

Anne Rice, author of the Interview With A Vampire series, who shocked the world by her re-conversion to Catholicism (and who recounted her spiritual awakening in Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession)recently and famously renounced her Christianity:


“I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of … Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen"

Notice that she does not say that she renounces Christ. In fact, she has affirmed that she remains as committed to Him as ever. What she is renouncing is "Christianity" as an ideology, a set of rules and and traditions and rituals whose adherents are struggling to keep alive against a flood of social change.

And this is precisely the sort of "Christianity" promoted by hard-core conservatives lik pastor Andrews. It isn't Christ to whom these conservatives are committed first and foremost, even though many may sincerely beleive otherwise. It is not about Christ, who warned the Pharisees repeatedly against legalism.

What this sort of conservative religious thought is really all about is preserving the culture. Perpetuating the faith. Passing on the torch. It is all about group survival, which is Darwinian if anything qualifies as such.

I said it had nothing at all to do with ethics, though, to be perfectly fair, it has nothing at to do with bigotry, oppression of women, patriarchy or suppression of freedom either.

What we are dealing with here is nothing more and nothing less than a culture, fearing it is in its final hours, and is struggling mightily for its own self-preservation.

'Til next time.

The Atheist's Guide to Reality by Alex Rosenburg

Alex Rosenburg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality, is, as its author states, not a book for theists but for those who already "know the truth." However, be warned: this is bound to be a tough pill to swallow, even for some of the most hard-core atheists around.

Like Harris, Rosenburg rejects the idea of free-will, beleiving that all human behavior is predetermined by causal events. Unlike Harris, however, and unlike the majority of unbelivers, Rosenburg truely does reject the idea that objective moral truths can exist.

You read that right.

For Rosenburg, objective morals belong in the same catagory as God, Satan, angels, ghosts, dragons and unicorns. That does not, however, make him a moral relativist, at least in the most common sense of the term. What he advocates is nihilism, the essential menainglessness of life, but he refers to it as a "nice nihilism," and assures his readers that loss of ultimate purpose--and meaning--is not really that big of a deal, anyway.

Why not? Well, basically, human beings, having evolved for "niceness," (which he extraporlates in detail) will simply will not want to relenquish our "core morality." What Rosneburg terms core morality consists of those moral truths that are agreed upon across cultural bounderies. Though Rosenburg doesn't say it outright, this might, in fact be essentially the same as that which contributes to human well-being cross-culturally (not including the particular twists, such as female circumcism, et. al., that are particular to certain cultures)i. e. what Harris considers to be objective moralism. Therefore, we may be able to reach moral concensus on controversial issues by reference to this agreed upon core morality. When it comes to abortion, for example, Rosenburg beleives that there should be no blanket prohibition, but that there are certain times (according to core morality) when abortion should be prohibited, even when the mother insists that it is her "natural right." Natural rights, along with God-given rights, he argues, simply do not exist.

Another thing interesting is that Rosneburg's beleif that all human actions are predetermined has led him to the position that (again in accordance with core morality), in regard to even hienous crimes, prisons should be places of rehab only, NOT punishment. What I find especially interesting is that this is, in fact, a very Christian position, no matter what social conservatives might say. Let's face it--most people who beleive in being "tough on crime" favor draconian tactics, and most especially capital punishment, not so much as a deterant, but as a form of societal revenge. And revenge, according to the New Testament, is NEVER the moral course of action. If indeed we reach the point where prisons truely are instutions for rehab only, we will have made much moral progress. That indeed we HAVE made much moral progress already is a belief also argued by Harris. There have been, indeed, moral peaks and valleys. Those who object are apt to the point to great atrocies of the twentieth century, most notably under the Communist and Nazi regimes. Nevertheless, Harris's reflection on the horrors of racism in the US a century ago, and the fact that they are looked on with astonishment by most of us today, demonstrate that progress has been made and will very likely continue.

And the fact that humans as a species are maturing morally (and by implication, spiritually) offers evidence that there really is a benevolent deity behind it all, guiding humanity along, whether athiests like it or not. The presence of great evil in the world merely shows, and abundantly, that true evil does exists, and we are engaged in warfare, one that hopefully, we are winning.

Another very thought-provoking book.

The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris

It has been a very long time since I have added anything to this blog.

I promised, well over a year ago that I would get around to reviewing Sam Harris's new book The Moral Landscape. It has actually been out for more than a year now itself, and I have already read it.

Harris's main thesis here is that, contrary to the assertions of many theists, objective moral truths really do exist, and reason and science should serve as tools to discover them. One of the main areas in which I find myself in agreement with atheists is the issue of unquestioning obedience. A common criticism aimed at atheists is that without a god, we are therefore free to make up any rules we like, even though very few atheists are true moral relativists. The problem is that unquestioning obedience to scripture, which is often implied, is the alternative to reason, runs straight into serious moral problems, especially when it comes to the doctrine of eternal punishment for sinners, and also the atrocities committed in the name of God in the Old Testament. The reason fundementalist Christians hold fast to both of these, as I'll argue further in another essay, has nothing to do with morality at all. And I might offend some Christians with what I am about to say next.

When it comes to moral guidence, I do not rely, first and formost, on scripture. I rely on prayer.

Harris, who literally calls for the end of faith, would do away with scripture entirely. And since he does not believe in faith, he would also, of necessity, do away with prayer as well.

Science and reason, he beleives, are the most reliable tools we have, not only for discovering facts about the material universe, but facts regarding morality as well. Since, as a theist, I agree with him that moral objectivism is correct, I also agree that objective moral truths may indeed to discoverable through rational inquiry. The thing is, as Harris demonstrates in his book, the moral truth in some areas may be very difficult to discern. Since most of us are not scientists, and do not have the toos of scientific inquiry at our disposal, prayer and intuitive reasoning will have to suffice for the short term.

In the past, Harris has defined true morality as a question of happiness vs. suffering, but think it is fairly obvious that this definition is not quite sufficient. Consider a virtual reality program in which all the inhabitants are kept in a state of everlasting bliss. Would such a state represent the peak of moral good? Few people would actually answer "yes." Part of the reason is that such a world would be an utter sham, and we tend to place high moral value on the quality of Truth. The apparent pointlessness of a state of eternal euphoria, too, is also a problem, and part of the reason the common perception of heaven is, in fact, fraught with moral difficulties. Using the degree of happiness vs. suffering as a yardstick to determine morality, indeed, leads to difficulty, as may be seen by Peter Singer's now notorious defense of infanticide:

http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singer-s-bold-defense-of-infanticide

Harris, who seems to have realized the problem inherent with "happiness vs. suffering" prior to writing this, alters his definition of morality somewht however, to "Human and animal well-being," indeed, a definition with a far closer proximity to the truth. It is true that most of us can generally determine how "moral" a thing is by its contribution to human well-being. Harris is critical of the supposed "morality" of suicide bombers on precisely these grounds. Morality cannot be simply a matter of "pleasing God," even though there are scads of both Christians and Muslims who would define it thusly. While we can rationally argue that if the actions of Muslim terrorists tie directly with the writings of their holy book, than it is a reasonable assertion that their faith itself is in error. It is my beleif that the same charge cannot be brought to bear upon the Christian faith. Don't beleive me? Name any terrible act done allegedly in name of Jesus Christ, and it will, of necessity, go diretly against His teachings.

Writes Harris:

Because most religions concieve of morality as a matter of being obedient to the word of God (generally for the sake of recieving supernatural reward), their precepts often have nothing to do with maximizing well-being in this world. Religious beleivers can, therefore, assert the immorality of contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, etc., with ever feeling obliged to argue that these practices actually cause suffering. They can also pursue aims that are flagrantly immoral, in that they needlessly pereptuate human misery, while beleiving these actions are morally oligatory. This pious uncoupling of moral concern from the reality of human and animal suffering has caused tremendous harm.

A scathing indightment of morality= "pleasing God." Indeed, very many religius folks, when faced with addressing the immorality of homosexuality, often fall back on the arguemnt of "it's not my opinion; it's what God's Word says." What they (and Harris) neglect to mention (and perhaps even to consider), is that anything branded as sinful by the Bible does, or did (indeed there were some prohibitions, like eating shelfish, that were verturned by the time o Christ), contribute to human harm. I won't go into the health risks associated with homosexuality, but they are leigion. I will mention briefly that the fact that so many innocent children contracted HIV back in the eighties, and were themselves aften the targets of persecution by the fearful, was largey a result of homosexual activity and drug abuse, is appalling to say the least, polliticaly incorrect as it is. So far as contraception, it may be right in some cases, and wrong in others depending on the circumstances. I might add that there is no Biblical passage at all even suggesting the immorality of contraception. That it has become a religous issue to such an extant has far more to do with the need to preserve culture and tradition than any connection with the teachings of Christ, or even of Moses. Ditto with homosexuality; while I explained the immorality above, and the fact that it is indeed prohibited by scripture (if not the actual teachings of Christ) the chief reason so many conservative Christians seem opposed to gayness, and gay marriage in particular, has more to do with a perceived threat to the nuclear family. Is the tradtional, nucelear family the most conducive to human welfare? Quite possibly, in most cases, it is. In others, perhaps not so, which is why adherence for rules for rules sake offers little reliable guidence for moral conduct.

Harris's book does, however, make some fascinating insights into the socio-cultural biases which tend to affect that which we percieve as moral. According to a study he cites, socio-political liberals tend to view morality in terms of harm and fairness. Conservatives tend to view morality in terms of harm, fairness, respect for authority, and group loyality. Notice that conservatives do not jettison harm and fairness, but add the two additional qualities. Harris beleives that conservatives may still be thinking on terms of harm, though it may be a different sort of harm considered by liberals. Perhaps conservatives also consider "harm to one's group," as equally immoral. This rather demonstrates that there is a tribalitic bias at work in conservative thought, and tribalism tends to be antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. One thinks of the associations of "God and country," and the often aggressive pro-millitary stance of the Religious Right. On the other hand, Harris cites an additional study which demonstrated that liberals tends to harbor a strong, yet appantently unconscious, racial bias in favor of minorities. According to this, liberals were eager to sacrifice the life of single white person to save the lives a group of non-whites, but not he other way around, all the while maintaining that the issue of race had not entered into their consideration.

The Moral Landscape is indeed a thought-provoking book, and it will certainly contribute to the debate surrounding how humans ought to regard right and wrong.

Review of Pete Turner's Whisper a Scream

Whisper a Scream is a Christian horror novel by Pete Turner, a friend of mine. The story concerns Solomon Noche, a man with a haunted past and an uncertain future. I'm not sure on just how much the author drew from his own experience, but Noche is a psychologist and a former Christian rock singer, the same as the author. But unlike Turner himself, Noche is suffering from deep personal loss: his wife and children died in a terrible accident, and Noche has never quite come to grips with this dreadful tragedy. In the prologue, we are treated to a flashback sequence in which, while in his father's church, the young Noche witnesses a man becoming possessed by a demon who identfies itself as "Miyah." The incident hints that Noche may harbor some type of sixth sense, as he is the only one who sees what's really happening. As a grief-torn adult, Noche finds himself blaming God for his family's loss (a coping strategy that is, unfortunately, quite common, even among Christians), and, in spite of his own psychiatric training, now finds himself drifting away from his relationship with Christ.
His real desscent into darkness begins, however, while routinely mowing his front lawn. He uncovers the entrance to an underground passage in his front lawn, which, naturally, he sets out to explore. What he uncovers is evidence of a sinister Druid-like cult which once throve in his isolated town of Retesville, including a sacrifical dagger, an pagan altar, and a strange journal belonging to a minister named Elija Darius. Excerpts from said journal are interspersed throughout the novel, giving tantelizing clues to the past. The cult is of Dagon, an ancient near-Eastern fertility god opposed by Yahweh, and who demands the blood of children. The journal reveals that Darius has witnessed these very atrocities. Has Noche really uncovered as sinister chapter in Retesville's history, or is his sanity, loosened the loss of his loved ones, finally beginning to slip?
There is an interplay between dreams, visions, and reality here that is never entirely clear. Are these visions merely products of a disturbed mind, are they truely demonic manifestations, or is Noche somehow experiencing the literal past? Noche also becomes haunted by visitations from a creature identifying itself as Miyah, which resembles a hideously deformed child. While the back-cover blurb is ambiguous as to whether Miyah is good or evil, the demonic nature of this creature is fairly obvious almost from the first time it shows itself. Both the Dagon cultists and Miyah refer to Christ, derisively, as "The Nazarene," and boast of the their power over him. Noche's bizarre experiences take on an increasingly real quality, until he finds himself facing what might be the ultimate nightmare for a Christian. Rest assurred, Noche DOES make the correct moral choice here, but on second thought, he is spared what might REALLY be the ultimate choice--if it were his family, not himself, that were threatened. If that had happened, I'm afraid I'd be rather confused, and I'm somewhat grateful Sol was spared that. I'm convinced Christ would not ask us to give up the lives of anyone else. On the other hand, He did ask us to deny our own lives, including our families, for His sake!
But now I've gone off on a tangent, as the story does not address that issue. What it does address is Sol's ability to renew his own faith in the Lord. At one point, he prays, saying in effect that there must have been a reason for the Lord's taking them. This of necessity assumes that God WAS rsponsible for the deaths, but for a higher purpose tha we humans, with our flawed wisdom, are unable to discern. This, in itself, is a matter or controversy tying in witht the "problem of evil"--does God control everything that happens, including all natural catatrophes which result in the loss of human life (even to the point of banishing free will, as the Calvinists beleive)? Does he simply not interfere (as a rule) in the natural world. This explanation actually works for me, becase if God were continuely suspending the rules of nature to save lives, the world could not function! I'd say that God basically leaves things alone--but back to the review.
The ending to the story is entirely unexpected, and it really came as a shock. I won't reveal anything here, except to say that it emphasizes that Noche's entire experience was indeed ultimately to bring him back into God's grace. The incident which occurs in the very last paragraph left me slightly confused, though. Part of the message that I got here was that Noche's allowing himself to blame God had damaged his relation with Christ, and had thus left him open to demonic attack. Now that the has renewed his relationship with Chirst, how do you account what occurs in the final passages?
All in all, this was a very thought-provoking read about the reality of spirtual warfare.

Buy the book on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Whisper-Scream-Pete-Turner/dp/1453655220

Sam Harris and Conversational Intolerence

Sam Harris, one of the leading New Atheist authors, has a forthcoming book called The Moral Landscape, due out this coming October. Already, I'm chomping at the bit. Unlike Same'sw two previous titles, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, which were blatant attacks on religion, this new offering purports to argue that science, not faith, can and should be used as a means of determining morality. This will be an interesting read! I have my doubts, seriously, that Harris can put forth an actual sceintific method for determining morals, but will be interesting to see what he says.

The one thing I want to talk about right now, though, is what Harris refers to a "conversational intolerence." What it means, essentially, is to show no respect for opinions which are deemed irrational by the listener. If someone suggested he believed that Zeus, for exmaple, was a real being, they would not be taken seriously, and might well be met with mockery and derision. The same sort of logic, Harris beleives, ought to apply to the Christian God. Since there is no more credibility for him, in Harris's opinion than Zeus, beleivers in Him ought be regardeded similarly. This, of course, doesn't take into account that if one religion is true, we should expect it to still be thriving today, and very influential, and doing the most material good in the world, along with gainging new convets who claim to have persoanlly experienced said relgion's God. Which does all this sound more like, Christ, or Zeus?

To be fair, Harris deserves credit for opposing state enforced intolerence of faith. But the question is, just what good can we reasonably expect from Harris's "conversational intolerence", especially in a debate about relgion? Harris himself may see this sort of intolerence as a sort of "polite disagreement", as he as never used flaming tactics in interviews and debates that I have seen. However, not everyone is civil when it comes to conversational intolerence. I've seen a great amount of trash-talking and personal attacks on beleivers on atheist messageboards, most of which seem to be in the service or so-called rationality. Since I've watched a number of episodes of the Atheist Experience on Youtube. I remember one episode where they were talking about whether atheists should side with religious "moderates" in opposing Creationism in the science class. In general, they did not want to side with theists at all, because if the topic of faith evver came up, they (the atheists) admitted they would instigate conflict. One of them said that if confronted with a beleif he did not consider rational, "sorry, you're going to get flayed alive."
Really? How does this sort of intolerence contribute to any sort of civil discussion? It doesn't, of course. I do not beleive that any theists have seriously reconsidered their opinions after meeting with such "conversational intolerence." Religion is a major force in th world, and treating beleivers as they would an occasioanl beleiver in Zeus is not going to make religion go away. It will, however, create hostility between the two sides, which will make civil discourse more difficult. Harris himself has seemed reasonable when it comes to repsenting his point of view in public. Perhaps theists would do best to follow Harris's example, but not his advice.