The Hypocrisy of “Inclusiveness”

A letter to a Unitarian-Universalist Pastor:

Dear Pastor,

Usually I appreciate your thoughtful sermons. So please forgive me if I take issue with this one. In contrast to other churches, you extolled your church – the Unitarian-Universalists – as loving and accepting of the hurt, rejected and marginalized, a safe-haven. You highlighted two hot-button groups – those living out the gay lifestyle and those who have had an abortion. You also stated that, out of fear and ignorance, other traditions had rejected these folk; suggesting that your church had transcended these narrow judgments.

Conspicuously, you didn’t mention other groups of people and behaviors like adulterers, bigamists, pedophiles, rapists, liars or kidnappers. I refer to these groups simply to make the point that we all draw the line somewhere. There are belief systems and lifestyles – murder, genocide, robbing, and lying – which we all reject, as we should. It is therefore unfair to characterize those who would also proscribe abortion as intolerant and hateful simply because they regard this behavior as unacceptable.

While you might tolerate certain behaviors that an evangelical church wouldn’t, the latter would tolerate certain behaviors and beliefs that you wouldn’t tolerate. About two years ago, the soon-departing head of your education department made an impassioned plea for Sunday-school teachers for 4th grades through adult. I emailed my interest, but also confessed that I was a Christian. Consequently, I was rejected without an explanation.

Later, my wife Anita responded, on my behalf, by application to your church email requesting Sunday-school teachers. We never heard a word.

Let’s admit it – we are all judgmental and intolerant of certain things. It’s therefore highly misleading to present your church as the pillar of understanding and compassion and to demonize the rest. Ironically, I think that history would argue that Christianity has provided the best safe-haven for the weak and marginalized.

Instead, your message serves to reinforce inflammatory and misleading stereotypes that can only facilitate further polarization and intolerance, the very things that you want to eliminate.

I’m sorry to have used such direct language. I want to be open to your response, so I’d be glad to hear what you have to say, whether by email or in person.

Sincerely, Daniel Mann
(I haven’t yet received a response.)

Identity and Psychological Well-Being

Psychologist James Hillman understandably insists that we have to recover a glimpse of our true destiny from the deadening materialistic ways we usually interpret our lives:

“We dull our lives by the way we conceive then…By accepting the idea that I am the effect of…hereditary and social forces, I reduce myself to a result. The more my life is accounted for by what already occurred in my chromosomes, by what my parents did or didn’t do, and by my early years now long past, the more my biography is the story of a victim. I am living a plot written by my genetic code, ancestral heredity, traumatic occasions, parental unconsciousness, societal accidents.” (The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling, Random House, 6)

Hillman so clearly recognizes the emptiness of a life built upon merely genetics and “societal accidents” and reminded me of my own self-despair. Years of psychotherapy had stripped me of any conception of dignity, meaning, honor, value, or purpose. I had become nothing more than a result, and the only source of value or purpose left open to me was that of enjoying my now painful and dysfunctional life, something far outside of my grasp.

Although my Jewishness seemed to give me some sense of meaning, I couldn’t identify how! Was my connection to the Jewish people merely a matter of being a part of a long-persecuted people? Did Hitler make me feel Jewish? And should I allow Hitler to have the privilege in shaping my identity? Wasn’t this pathological, and wasn’t I supposed to be aiming towards a wellness-identity? Certainly my Jewishness transcended my own pathetic circumstances and connected me to 4000 years of history, but everyone else’s ethnic history took them back this far. Although they might not be able to attach a name to their ethnicity as I could, I seemed to be no better off for it. An ancient pedigree might mean a lot to a brewery, but how would this help me?

Hillman’s own answer points beyond this life:

“As explained by the greatest of later Platonists, Plotinus, we selected the body, the parents, the place, and the circumstances that suited the soul…This suggests that the circumstances, including my body and my parents whom I may curse, are my soul’s own choice.” (p. 8)

Is this biography or identity an improvement over the genetic and “societal accidents” biography most of us are stuck with? I don’t think so. Although it might broaden the scope of our lives chronologically, it fails to broaden them meaningfully. Life, identity, and biography are still centered upon the depressing and bungling god of self! Instead, our deepest longing envisions a connection to something greater than self, to the Source of all meaning and truth, to a Place where we can find rest for our weary souls:

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28-30).

It was the Master of all creation who promised to give me rest. This was the missing link, the piece that enabled me to take my eyes off my inadequate self and to attach them to a fully adequate and loving Savior. When we fail to find true identity in Christ, we condemn ourselves to an endless cycle of trying to refurbish our identity by chasing after the autographs of the rich and famous, or by affiliating with the in-groups, or by recovering our “past lives,” because our present one just ain’t enough.

Freewill: Just an Illusion?

Here’s my letter to atheists who deny the existence of freewill:

Here are some considerations that argue against denying freewill:

1. Your denial of freewill doesn’t seem to have an evidential basis. Simply because we can find many physical and psychological factors that tend to limit our freewill responses, these findings fail to prove that there aren’t some undetermined or freewill elements at play in the choices we make. Instead, it appears that your conclusion is driven by philosophical materialism/naturalism.

2. I cannot deny my freewill without also denying other things that are equally obvious to me. If I’ve been duped about the perception of my freewill, then I have also been duped about my existence and my other sensory perceptions. It’s so obvious to me that I can freely choose between ordering a Big Mac or a cheeseburger. If I am mistaken about this seemingly free choice, perhaps I’m also mistaken about who and where I am? However, in order to live coherently, I have to accept my basic perceptions.

3. I cannot deny our freewill and, at the same time, treat others with the dignity that I believe is inherent within them. By denying freewill, you are reducing us to mere robots, degraded objects undeserving of human dignity. I have heard teachers comment that when we treat our students as merely products of their environment, as opposed to free moral agents, we demean them in such a way as to interfere with their positive future adjustment.

4. If I deny our freewill, I can’t approve of punishment. If they never had freewill and are instead pre-programmed to act in a certain way, then they aren’t responsible moral agents. Consequently, we have no right to blame and punish others for their behaviors. Just imagine that a friend maliciously ruined your reputation. You confront him and he replies, “Sorry about that – I just don’t have any freewill. My chemistry compelled me to do it! I’m therefore not guilty. Pick a fight with my chemistry!” If you don’t believe in freewill, at least to some extent, your worldview prevents you from accusing your friend of wrong-doing, and this discourages responsible, moral behavior. It would be like blaming your toilet for overflowing.

5. Besides, if freewill is nothing more than a chemical reaction, then too our denial of freewill is just a chemical reaction and not a product of willfully assessing the evidence. Hence, the denial of freewill can be dismissed along with all considerations of truth.

6. By denying freewill, you deprive yourself and others the privilege of taking full responsibility for your actions and the restoration and hope that results from a full confession of our misdeeds. This philosophical stance will have the effect of dumbing- down and depressing our lives and relationships.

7. Without freewill, the rationale for moral persuasion – so critical for a healthy society – is severely undermined. What then is left to secure order and stability? Might-makes-right, the use of violence and coercion!

I think that the best protection for the belief in freewill is Scripture’s teaching that we are created in the image of God and are therefore morally accountable. I suspect that it is your atheistic commitments – your lenses through which you filter reality – that have prevented you from acknowledging freewill, which is so patently obvious and important. Please reconsider the price you pay to preserve your atheism.

Skeptical about Atheism

My Response to an Atheist who Believes that the Belief in God is Utter Foolishness:

While I share your high estimation of skepticism – it was skepticism that brought me from agnosticism to Christianity – you claim that the existence of God is an “extraordinary claim without the support of extraordinary evidence (to paraphrase Carl Sagan paraphrasing David Hume).” In this, I don’t think that you are sufficiently skeptical about your own claim of naturalism.

While I agree with you about the “extraordinary claims” that require “extraordinary evidence,” I must point out that we all must grapple with the same two “extraordinary” choices – Either Naturalism or Supernaturalism is the origin/explanation of the universe. Let me now set forth some arguments for Supernaturalism in favor of Naturalism.

1. Our experience uniformly demonstrates that the cause must be greater than the effect. Intelligent causation is greater than non-intelligent causation. Therefore, supernaturalism must be the preferred hypothesis.

2. Supernaturalism (transcendence) is a better explanation than Naturalism (materialism) for the immutability of the physical laws. Something must transcend our expanding universe of molecules-in-motion. (Where do the “natural” laws come from?)

3. Supernatural Transcendence is also a better explanation than localized materialism for the uniform operation of these laws throughout the universe.

4. Supernatural Oneness is more parsimonious than the idea of myriads of independently operating natural laws. It better accounts for the stability and regularity of the physical world.

5. Although we all agree that phenomena occur formulaically and predictably, there is absolutely no evidence that the laws that govern are natural as opposed to their being part of a Super-Intelligence.

6. Naturalism is utterly inadequate to account for many phenomena – life, DNA, consciousness, freewill, the fine-tuning of the universe, reason and logic – while Supernaturalism is adequate.

The Evol. Establishment and Their Consensus

I can’ remember the number of times that I’ve heard theistic (Christian) evolutionists accusing the church for having blindly and ignorantly ignored the findings of science, namely evolution. However, I just read an illuminating rebuttal on the subject in the Institute For Creation Research (ICR) journal (May 2009), entitled “Consensus Science: The Rise of the Scientific Elite.”

While the evolution establishment would have us believe that their consensus agreement, regarding evolution, was un-coerced, ICR has another story to tell. Instead, the “consensus” seems to be the product of carefully selected and promoted allies. In addition to this, while we hear much about the alleged safeguards to insure objectivity through critical peer examination and replication of experimentation, ICR exposes it as “an incestuous style of peer review” – the promotion of a in-group worldview by a group of insiders who rigorously hold tight to the reigns. Here are some quotations cited by ICR that should give us some hesitation about this “consensus”:

1. “The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct…is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group.” (Professor John Christy, University of Alabama)

2. “With the explosion of scientific knowledge…the expertise to master even a small corner of the scientific field has made the necessity of collaborating with other scientists a virtual necessity, requiring a good deal of trust among researchers…. The pressures to publish not only increase the risk of mistakes made in haste, but more menacingly, raise the rewards of outright manipulation of data. Critics argue that the scientific community is generally unprepared to recognize such fraud.” (Science writer, William Allman)

3. “Unfortunately, although the ability to replicate results is one of science’s strongest defenses against fraud, few experiments are repeated exactly…As a result, fudged data that conform to prevailing scientific wisdom…can easily slip into print.” (Sharon Begley)

4. “Our [scientists’] ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of the fully rational and objective ‘scientific method’ with individual scientists as logical and interchangeable robots, is self-serving mythology.” (Stephen Jay Gould)

5. “People need to realize that scientists are human beings like everybody else and that their pronouncements may arise from their social prejudices, as any of our pronouncements might. The public should avoid being snowed by he scientist’s line: ‘Don’t think about this for yourself, because it’s all too complicated.’” (Gould)

However, this is just what has happened. The evol. establishment has paraded itself into court on numerous occasions, always insisting – based upon their manufactured consensus – that evolution is the only scientific explanation for the origins of life and demanding a virtual monopoly to teach science. Sadly, the courts have ignored Gould’s warning and have granted them just about everything that they’ve demanded.

The question that we must ask is this: “Is science best served – and has it historically been best served – by an enforced monopoly or by safeguarding a free and competitive marketplace?”

Are We Sexist?

According to Nicholas D. Kristof, the church is sexist and must repent:

“When religious institutions exclude women form their hierarchies and rituals, the inevitable implication is that females are inferior…Religious groups should stand up for a simple ethical principle: any human rights should be sacred, and not depend on something as earthly as genitals” (NYT, 1/9/10 – quoted from Time Magazine, 1/20/10).

What then should role distinctions depend upon? Normally, it’s a matter of “achievements.” If Kristof is rejecting sex-related role distinctions, why not also all role distinctions? Don’t they also imply “inferiority?” Kristof is a NYT editor, a very prestigious and influential position. By comparison, I would think that his position might make others feel inferior? Perhaps it would be best if society would rotate these “superior” positions so as to prevent the formation of an “inferior” underclass?

I would guess that Kristof might answer this way: “I worked hard to get to where I now am.” He might even be correct about this, but didn’t he come from a position of privilege, which enabled him to attain his lofty status? Perhaps he had more nurturing parents than others? Why then should he benefit from these incidentals if they serve to reinforce the “inferiority” of others?

Of course, I’m being absurd, but if Kristof is concerned about the status of women in religious institutions, shouldn’t he also be concerned about the question of status in general?

In addition to this, there is also his notion of “superiority and inferiority” itself which he is prejudicially wielding against the religious. Isn’t he uncritically imposing his Western status-laden values? Why does he assume that the pastor’s role is superior, while the church secretary’s role is inferior? Or that the breadwinner’s role is superior to the child-raiser’s role?

I choose to believe that Kristof’s intentions are pure, and that he genuinely believes that he is championing the cause of women. Instead, however, the implications of his charge are both insulting and dismissive of the very vital roles traditionally performed by women, roles in no way inferior to those of men, as he implies.

Perhaps, because of his Western bias, Kristof fails to perceive the way that he is demeaning the very roles where women have performed best and in which they experienced the greatest sense of fulfillment. The other side of the story needs to be told. Western propaganda has deprived many women of motherhood by luring them into careers which promised to rescue them from their “inferior” status. In general, it has been contemptuous of the traditional role of the woman, causing her to loose face.

Shouldn’t we have long left this naïve, radical egalitarianism behind? Haven’t the disciplines of neurology and physiology firmly established the profound differences between the sexes and therefore, their variant needs and abilities? If these have been scientifically established, why then does Western culture continue to insist on the elimination of any role distinctions? Doesn’t this insistence simply represent an attempt to exalt a secular religion over traditional religions?

I haven’t done any empirical studies on the subject, but I’d venture to say that countries that have been strongly influenced by the Bible demonstrate the best track record regarding their treatment of women. Yes, I’m aware that secular and communistic societies are good about talking the feminist talk, but I’d also like to observe their “walk,” especially over the long haul. Meanwhile, I think that it might behoove Mr. Kristof to reconsider his indictments while he reexamines his own religious commitments, along with their implications.

The Old Testament: God’s Word

The Wellhausen Hypothesis (The Documentary Hypothesis) had asserted that the OT had been nothing more than the product of numerous editors who cut and pasted the OT together from a shabby assortment of previously existing documents in order to suit their political agendas. However, this hypothesis has been overturned by numerous forms of evidence.

One line of evidence argues that the OT reflects a Divine agenda rather than a human one. Here are just a very limited number of evidences that we might consider:

1. Our Patriarchal forefathers are shown to be scoundrels – pimps, cheats and liars – not the heroes that the Jewish commentaries portray them as being. They are hardly the role-models that we’d invent in order to make our religion appealing to perspective buyers.

2. The future monarchy (Deut. 17), rather than being presented as God’s ideal, appears to be God’s reluctant concession to His stubborn people. Furthermore, kings are warned that they are no better or more deserving than others and are subject to the same laws. This legislation does not reflect the interests of the monarchy or ruling class whose interest it would have been to promote a strong monarchy.

3. The laws protecting the poor and marginalized could not have been the product of the rich and privileged. The poor could glean grapes and grain from the vineyards of the rich (Deut. 24:24-25). Such a law could not protect the interests of the rich and powerful who characteristically make such laws to protect their own interests,

4. Whenever soldiers feared for their safety, the law encouraged them to go AWOL (Deut. 20) – hardly the legislation of a ruling class wanting to protect its interests.

5. The Levites would not legally be entitled to any inheritance. Why would the priestly caste ever institute or allow such legislation unless it came from above!

6. The ordained holidays do not commemorate any historical event -- the Passover is the one clear exception – but instead seem to be prophetic. However, nations do not establish such holidays. No one would embrace them!

7. Instead of encouraging Israel that they had a winning religion that would make the Israelites successful, Moses assured them that they would fail (Deut. 30:6). This is something that human designers of a religion wouldn’t do lest their people mutiny.

8. Instead of giving the Israelites a sense of superiority, Moses and the Prophets consistently revealed how utterly unworthy they were of anything from God. Why would Israel accept such a revelation unless the hand of God had been so manifestly present!

In contrast to the Documentary Hypothesis, all of these teachings are anomalous. I don’t think you will find them in other religions or legislation. They reflect the landscape of a transcendent God and not human interests.