THE NARROWING OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN

Maximizing our humanity requires us to use all of our faculties, integrating sensual awareness and experience with rationality and wisdom. This means that we cannot reject any of our faculties. If we reject our eyes, we will stumble. If we reject our ears, we will not be able to socialize. If we reject our minds, we will not be able to make wise decisions.

However, rejecting rationality and, with it, moral certainty, mindlessness has become acceptable. The evidence of this is all around us. Mindfulness training requires us to close down our minds and only to observe without making moral judgments.

I just read an appealing advertisement for a new meetup group:

·       "From the time we’re just out of diapers we’re charged by our parents, our peers, our lovers, ourselves, with the task of maintaining certainty, and if we don’t feel certainty, of manufacturing it. Tonight’s going to be different—tonight we’ll ask all who come to drop the certainty and gather around a comfortable white sofa with a glass of wine and a sense of curiosity. What brings you joy? What keeps you up at night? How’s your heart? What do you love, and what would you like to be different? What do you want to share, or hear from your brothers?"

Understandably, wisdom and certainty are demanding, while experience and feelings are just what they are (or however we want to interpret them), and, without making judgments about them, they are all acceptable.

Admittedly, this might prove comfortable for the short run. More importantly, this trend reflects a narrowing and a dangerous cultural trend. We feel uncomfortable about judgment, more specifically, about being criticized. Even more, we cannot endure criticism. It attacks the very basis who we are as people - our value and personhood.

In fact, we feel so threatened by criticism, many have gone so far as to deny freewill. After all, if we lack freewill, we couldn't have done otherwise and, therefore, bear no guilt.

Ironically, to defend ourselves against criticism and guilt, we demean who we are as humans. Consequently, we see ourselves as wet machines – not very edifying.

Well, if we are merely machines that cannot do otherwise, why then should we try to oppose our desires to steal and cheat? The only rationale that then remains to oppose our selfish instincts is the fear of getting caught, but fear alone is often not enough. Consequently, lying, stealing, and cheating have become so prevalent that no one trusts our institutions. Can we survive such cynicism?

What is the answer? How are we to bear our moral failures and accept criticism? Simply through confidence that when we confess our sins and failures to our Savior, He forgives and cleanses us completely! And when we come to live according to His opinions, we gradually lose our fear of the opinions and criticisms of others. Instead of people-pleasers, we are liberated to become God-pleaser. It's beats being a wet machine.

Church-Bashing and Genocide

(With thanks to David Singer for the photo!)

Genocide is not a weed that just suddenly appears. It has to be deliberately cultivated over a long period of time. The henchmen have to be prepared and convinced that they are doing the right thing. The target group has to be defamed and demonstrated that they do not have a right to exist. They are vermin that have to be eliminated in order to create a better world.

The Communists did this with the land owners. They were consistently cast as the “oppressors.” The National Socialists did the same thing with the Jews; the Hutus with the Tutsis – first vilify and then eliminate!

This is part of the reason why I object to the overwhelming torrent of criticism aimed at the church in the West. It is not that we are totally innocent; nor is it that we cannot profit from the criticism. We can! However, there is a point when criticism ceases to become constructive and instead becomes systematic defamation, and defamation opens to door to subjugation and even elimination.

It is so troubling to hear the many voices calling for the silencing of the church. And what a stark contrast to the Western acclaim for diversity and tolerance! While they wave the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, they are intent on marginalizing or even eliminating the church. As one atheistic group, I’m Proud to be an Atheist, advertised:

• I’ll stop attacking religion when religion stops hurting people and telling lies.

According to this group, we hurt people by our very nature. We talk about eternal judgment, and that bothers people. Consequently, the attacks will not stop. But talk about calories bothers people! Another group, Atheism and World Peace, declared:

• I have no reason and no intention to respect a religion that violates basic human rights. 

In other words, “I refuse to respect you unless you agree with my philosophy of life.” In this intolerant social climate, we are now charged with “hate speech” when we don’t agree, and therefore, we must be silenced.

However, what are even more troubling than the hypocrisy of the West are the voices within the church, especially among the evangelical break-away group calling itself the “Emergent Church!” One of their exponents, Shane Claiborne, described the traditional church this way:

• When studying sociology, I saw a lot of disturbing things. Sociological studies show that the higher a person’s church attendance, often the more prone they are to be racist, sexist, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-death penalty, and known for a lot of things that Jesus wasn’t know for…Just a few years ago, friends of mine did a study; they asked non-Christians around the country, “What do you think when you hear ‘Christian?’” And the number one answer was “anti-homosexual.” (ALife, 7/15/13, 14)

Well, this is not surprising, given the anti-Christian animus in the West! While I will not dispute that Christians haven’t always conducted themselves as they should have, my experience runs counter to the narrative ubiquitously promoted in western media – Christian parents disown their gay children. I have never seen an instance of this. However, I know many Christian parents who have been rejected by their gay children!

It is not surprising that Claiborne has referenced  selected studies that have reflected badly on Christians. However, I have seen many studies with the opposite findings. However, Claiborne has concluded that these studies represent, proof-positive, that the church has failed to follow Jesus and that He and his Emergent Church movement are correcting all of that by simply taking Jesus literally.

Well, let’s look closer at his critique. Perhaps serious Christian are more “sexist.” It depends upon what Claiborne means by “sexist.” If he is referring to biblically ordained role distinctions, then he is right. Perhaps serious Christians are also more “pro-war” and “pro-death penalty.” However, to deny that war is ever necessary is also to deny that police are ever necessary!  Perhaps Christians are more, “anti-gay,” depending upon what he means by that. If it means that we are against this highly self-destructive lifestyle, then I guess we are anti-gay. But is this in opposition to the love of Jesus, calling everyone to repent of their sins? And is this an adequate basis to join the prevailing culture to vilify the church?

It seems that Claiborne entered into his sociology classes with a worldview already poised against the biblical church. We then have to ask, “What does he mean by Christians being more ‘racist?’” Perhaps he simply means that many churches congregate according to race. Although I wish this wasn’t the case, this is certainly a far cry from his charge of racism.

Here’s what troubles me – so many members of the Emergent Church are just as critical of the church as those on the outside. In Claiborne’s case – and his worldview is reflective of the attitudes of many young Christians – his contempt for the traditional church has led him and other Emergents to reject the church and to reinvent it in a way that it more congruent with Western tastes.

Although the Emergents do not want to see the church eliminated in the same way that atheists want to see it eliminated, their criticism of the traditional church reflects an unbiblical contempt and a willingness to misuse Scripture to support their own agenda.

Claiborne claims that the traditional church has not reflected Jesus as they ought to have. He cites, “And they will know you are Christians by your love,” to prove his point. However, he has wrongly quoted this verse:

•  ^“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35)

According to Jesus, the world will know that we belong to Him by our love for the brethren and not by some amorphous “love” that is supposed to embrace all lifestyles, no matter how sinful or destructive. Sadly, the Emergent Church has failed in Jesus’ love. Instead of loving the brethren, they have rejected us.

I have my own sins, and I am very willing to confess them. We all must confess our sins. However, according to the National Socialists, the Jews had devolved far beneath other peoples. According to Muslims, the Jews had become children of apes and swine, far beneath any Muslim! Therefore, it was fitting to eliminate them as they would any disease. This is precisely what has been building in the power structures of Western society regarding the church.

Criticism has its place, but it also must be kept in balance, the very thing that is now lacking. Once people believe that we are worse than others, they will begin to treat us as such!

What is the source of the contempt for the church? Instead of answering this question, I want younger Christians to do a little self-reflection. Are their negative attitudes about the church a product of cultural influences? Has their criticism ceased to be constructive? Is it merely serving to further marginalize the church or even to eliminate it? Is this what they want? Above all else, what should the love that our Savior taught us look like?

Should Religion be Subject to Criticism?

Atheist Greta Christina writes:

• Why should religion be treated differently from all other kinds of ideas? Why shouldn’t we criticize it, and make fun of it, and try to persuade people out of it, the way we do with every other kind of idea? (alternet.org, 4/29/2012)

Christina asks a good question. I think that religion should be open to criticism, especially in our pluralistic society. To not be open to criticism is to be marginalized. If we are willing to be criticized, then we have no right to criticize others and their beliefs. If we try to maintain this imbalance, we will inevitably self-segregate, and I fear that we have done this to some degree.

However, I am struck though that Christina would even ask such a question. The Bible has been the object of intense criticism for almost 300 years, and, somehow, we’ve survived it – and I trust that we will continue to survive.

The Judeo-Christian tradition has always been open to rationality and, therefore, criticism. Our God has always been willing to enter into dialogue with His critics. He states through Isaiah the Prophet:

• "Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

Perhaps He might not enter into dialogue according to our schedules, but He does promise answers to those who are seeking (James 1:5-8; Matthew 7:7-8). Job had demanded an audience with his Maker, and he finally was granted it (Job 40-42). Even “doubting Thomas” finally received the confirmation he had demanded.

However, not all religions are as open to reason and criticism. The Koran warns:

• [Surah 33:59-61] If the hypocrites, the sick of heart, and those who spread lies in the city [Medina] do not desist, We [Allah] shall arouse you [the Prophet Mohammad] against them, and then they will only be your neighbors in this city for a short while. They will be rejected wherever they are found, and then seized and killed.

I was a bit provoked by Christina’s phrase, “shouldn’t we criticize it, and make fun of it.” Certainly, she has that right. However, she later asserted:

• We need to draw a careful line between criticizing ideas and marginalizing people. We need to remember that people who disagree with us are still people, deserving of basic compassion and respect.

As Christians, we certainly agree with Christina. However, I began to wonder what Christina meant by the term “people.” Some are highly educated, while others aren’t. Some say wise things, while others are willfully malicious and cause great pain. Why should they all be treated with “basic compassion and respect?” From a pragmatic point of view, some should be assigned a negative value, and if they have negative worth, then there can be no basis for “compassion and respect.”

However, according to Biblical revelation, we are all created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), and therefore are greatly valued and beloved by our Creator (John 3:16). This makes indiscriminate “compassion and respect” for all a Biblical virtue. However, I wondered if Christina realized that her “faith” had a Biblical basis and also that it couldn’t be supported by her materialistic thinking.

Christina then insists that religious belief is more dangerous than other kinds of beliefs:

• But if religious differences really are more likely to lead to bigotry, tribalism, violence, etc., doesn’t that show what a bad idea it is? If the ideas of religion are so poorly rooted in reality that there’s no way to resolve differences other than forming battle lines and screaming or shooting across them, doesn’t that strongly suggest that this is a truly crappy idea, and humanity should let go of it? Doesn’t that suggest that persuading people out of it is a really good thing to do?

Of course, if religion always breeds warfare, then Christina is correct, and we should “persuade people out of it.” However, she commits several fallacies:

1. She claims that religion is a “truly crappy idea.” However, there are many different religions. Christina doesn’t refer to “crappy ideas” but a “crappy idea,” as if they are all one and all “will lead to bigotry, tribalism, violence.”

2. She also fails to see that we all have our religions. Even the atheists have their religions. If we define religious belief as those beliefs that can’t be proved by science – and many use this definition – then we are all religious. We all have values/morals, which science can’t prove. We all have standards we use to place a value on people and things. In fact, some atheists are willing to acknowledge that they too have their religion. The First Humanist [Atheist] Manifesto (Paul Kurtz, 1933) reads, “Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”

3. Christina also erroneously assumes that all religion lacks an evidential basis. She claims that they are “so poorly rooted in reality that there’s no way to resolve differences.” However, are the moral claims of secular humanism any more “rooted in reality than the claims of other religions? Hardly!

Sadly, out of defensiveness, we have been prone to fight. However, this should serve as a call to better acquaint ourselves with the evidential basis of Christianity – the reasons to believe – rather than to fight or abandon our faith, as Christina would like to see happen.

Besides, it is remarkable that she hasn’t acknowledged the very obvious fact that the atheistic religions have a worse track-record. Atheistic Communists have murdered a hundred million according to many estimates.

We don’t ask for different treatment - we should be prepared for criticism and even welcome it. We just ask for fair treatment.  As secular humanism has gained control of the media and universities, we have seen the Christian faith marginalized, Christians routinely portrayed as idiots, and Christianity construed as a “crappy idea” at best and the source of “bigotry, tribalism, violence, etc,” at the worst. And this is all happening without meaningful access to the media to rebut these unfair characterizations.

It is therefore astonishing that Christina needs to make a case for the right to criticize religion. It’s like as Eskimo pleading for more snow.