Taxation is not Unbiblical

July 11, 2010 //
1

In many of the more conservative Christian circles there is this radical idea that taxation is completely against Christian morality and principles. The argument is always a strange syncretism of Libertarianism and Christianity and usually follows these lines:

God created man to work, and work is good. The fruits of a man’s labor are his and his alone. No one has rights to another man’s resources, taking it is theft. The government takes a man’s income through threats of prison and physical violence as taxes. Clearly this is theft and also against the commandments of God. Therefore taxation is immoral and unbiblical.

The argument is compelling, but not well thought out.

Firstly, as all Americans (and all citizens of free nations) know, the power of government derives from the consent of the governed. This is a basic tenant of Classical Liberalism, from which the modern ideology of Libertarianism gets its basis. If free men make up a society then the rules and rulers of that society can only have the powers given to them by that society. One of the most familiar examples of this is a democracy like the government of the US. Free people elect others to represent them, who then create the rules of society. By electing these leaders to do their will, the people are consenting tacitly to follow them. Therefore, anyone voluntarily and peacefully living in such a society has also consented to the laws created by these elected officials. Therefore if taxes are part of these laws, they cannot be stealing since the citizens have consented to give up their money freely.

Secondly, while the Bible is explicitly against stealing, the Bible is also just as explicitly for paying taxes. In Luke 20:22 Jesus is asked “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Noting that the coin had Caesar’s face on it, he famously answers: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Its hard to get more explicit than that: if it is the government’s then give it to the government. If the government requires taxes from you, then pay them. This is repeated again by Paul in Romans 13:6-7 “This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Lastly, on a more theological note, when trying to baptize the accumulation of personal wealth as something ordained by God, one should keep in mind that God doesn’t have a particularly high view the rich. One simply has to look at Jesus’ exhortations to give up all earthly possessions and his oft repeated statement about it being easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle than to enter heaven. Wealth is just as much a hinderance as a blessing for a Christian. Therefore Christians should weigh the retention of their material wealth against the possibility of that wealth providing a social safety net for the unfortunate, or providing protection for their neighbors.

No one likes paying taxes. However taxation is a necessary way to fund services that maintain order and make living in a modern society possible. Everyone is aware that their taxes go to fund roads and police, but  in the US huge amounts of tax dollars are also spent on research grants for medicine, science, and technologies that do not have any immediate monetary return. The DARPA network was one such project, and apparently that turned out pretty well. So, while there is always waste to be eliminated, Christians simply cannot assert that taxation is stealing or that it is inherently immoral.

Capitalized Healthcare

August 10, 2009 //
4

Much has been said about the downfalls of socialized health care, but almost no one has dared to raise the systemic issues with “capitalized health care.” The charm behind capitalism is its fabled ability to efficiently allocate resources. The theory goes, proper allocation and cost efficiency brings prices down and improves quality. This can be attested to in most situations, but sadly, with health care the incentives are all wrong.

Healthcare is what is known as an inelastic commodity. As price increases for this commodity demand will barely decrease. According to a RAND study commissioned for the Department of Defense:

Despite a wide variety of empirical methods and data sources, the demand for health care is consistently determined to be price inelastic. Although the range of price elasticity estimates is relatively wide, it tends to center on -0.17, meaning that a 1 percent increase in the price of health care will lead to a 0.17 percent reduction in health care expenditures. (page xi)

The reason behind this is pretty simple. When someone gets sick or injured money is often the last thing on their mind. After all, if you don’t have your health, you don’t have anything. So basically, people will pay whatever is necessary to keep themselves healthy. This makes sense, but the inelasticity of health care as a commodity becomes a problem when you consider the incentives it creates for those involved in supplying health care.

In a pure capitalist system, if people are willing to pay almost anything for a product, it shouldn’t be surprising if the cost of it starts to float upwards. After all, the suppliers of health care exist for the sole benefit of their investors and shareholders. Corporations with higher returns on investments attract more capital and can thus become larger. Those that can provide a good return are the ones that grow and conquer. Therefore, the obvious incentive here for a health care corporation is to raise the price as high as possible, but not so high as to create a public outcry and have pesky regulations created.

Secondly, since the outcome of all quality health care is the same — health — health care businesses with satisfactory records providing care must compete for customers by using gimmicks and small but ultimately irrelevant perks. For instance, one that is quite common now is proclaiming the greatness of brand new therapies as being the most “high tech” available despite there being little or no actual improvement in results offered. Another common one is simply inviting new patrons by offering “VIP” treatment. Both of these offer no substantial improvement to one’s health but add to the costs of treatment.

Then, as prices inevitably rise health care becomes prohibitively expensive insurance becomes mandatory. Insurance, while not an intrinsically bad thing, adds yet another layer of profit on top of what is being charged by hospitals and physicians. Then to compound the problem for the average consumer is the fact that insurance corporations also exist for the sole benefit of their shareholders. As income is fixed by monthly payment schemes, revenue maximizing action is taken on the costs side. Minimizing costs as an insurance company is quite easy: simply deny coverage in as many instances as possible.

A Capitalist system of health care without significant and intrusive regulation will produce high costs and terrible coverage for this simple reason: the incentives are designed to maximize the good for investors and corporations at the expense of the average person. Health care providers are encouraged to raise prices as high as the political zeitgeist allows while innovating on sometimes very frivolous things. Costs thus become prohibitive and insurance companies, with a desire to minimize losses, begin deciding who receives treatment and who does not.

Pick your overlords carefully: the government responsible to voters, or corporations responsible to shareholders.

Authenticity and Love: a Contradiction?

August 3, 2009 //
4

“Authentic living” has become one of the most encouraging yet risky trends in church youth movements today. This hippie hearkening cultural shift has a decisive post modern flare, and it is characterized by simplicity, downward mobility, a reactionary stance to consumerism, a renewed fascination with social justice, and an emphasis on communal living vs individualism (among many other things). In church communities where this trend is embraced, I have observed that such a gravitation towards authenticity becomes an ultimate rudder, guiding individual attitudes and behavior into some surprising new territory.

This is certainly a logical shift. The culture of our parents is clearly one of fragmentation and dichotomies: public and private, facts and values, spirituality and physicality, professional and personal, etc. But, as the hippie movement of the sixties well illustrated, the apple pie and picket fences that were the material fruit of such life management practices were far from satisfying to the core of humanity’s needs. The weight of such dichotomies created a separation of life(s) that was far from authentic living, laborious to maintain and ultimately dishonest. Today, there is certainly a mainstream fascination with this shift. Television shows like Mad Men (6 Emmy awards and 3 Golden Globes), movies like American Beauty (5 Oscars) and even the election of political officials who with cheery personal admission embrace their youthful experimentation with drugs and “alternative lifestyles”, colloquial speech and advocacy of multi family urban living over and above suburban sprawl illustrates that the dissatisfaction that spurned the personal expression in the 1960′s is only continuing to grow.

That some Christians are embracing a cultural shift away from such dissatisfying dichotomies, in my view, is almost a breath of fresh air, and nearly brings hope to my own disillusionment with the modern enculturation of the western church. To such a great degree, the church has become syncretised with Americana, and as such has become grievously limited. The Americanization of the church has effectively exchanged the understanding of suffering (so characteristic of the ancient church), the hope of ultimate redemption and the scriptural emphasis on community for the lust for personal property, comfort, security, and the rest of the American dream, whatever that may be (which in these harsh economic and socio-political times has started to resemble more of a nightmare). The Americanization of the church has encouraged an extremely cornered bias on most issues that face the Global church, and because of it we (the church in America) share little in the suffering and unique world views of our brothers and sisters from different cultural/national backgrounds.

However, I have become concerned with the trend towards authenticity which is pervading the more culturally hip edges of the church. Recently, after a conversation with some friends about the appropriateness of sharing deep personal experiences in a public context, I reflected on the idea of “my life as an open book”. In the trajectory of this culture of authentic living, such a philosophy of personal sharing is somewhat en vogue. I must, however, criticize this type of expression. The biggest reason for my criticism of this open book approach is because many pages of the story that my life is creating are shared by others. Their personal involvement with me is part of my story, but I cannot assume that they view their lives as open books as well, and sharing about certain aspects of relationship, especially in regards to romantic involvement, could betray their trust, their struggles and possibly their shame as well. This is far from the self sacrificing, gracious and protective love that Christ advocated.

Secondly, the trend towards authenticity may in fact hurt those who have different ideas about morality. If I consume alcohol, eat meat or experiment with certain controversial practices “authentically”, I run the risk of abandoning those who struggle with the morality that I accept. It is likely that at some point an alcoholic, whose life I have touched, may be stumbled into the indulgence of addiction. It is quite possible that the vegetarian, who for moral and/or religious reasons does not consume meat, is offended and pushed away from relationship by my consumption of meat. The trend towards authenticity certainly advocates “being yourself”, and why should anyone be anything else? But if the self is the ultimate gauge for conduct and relationship, then once again, we abandon the love born sacrifices that Jesus advocated in His ministry, His life and His death.

This is why authenticity as a comprehensive lifestyle is bankrupt according to the requirements of love. Love does not demand that one lie about the self, but rather that one sacrifice and limit the self based on the needs, struggles and/or weaknesses of others. Jesus followers can’t just say “I am going to live my life and if some one else has a problem with my conduct that is their problem.” I hear Christians advocating this attitude all the time, and frankly it hurts. We can justify so much based on the liberties Jesus has given those who follow him, but we do the ministry of the cross great disservice if we make our lives about justification rather than love. Romans chapter 14 speaks to this issue, and specifically verse 15: “If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died”.

What we do we do within a community. Authentic living should certainly be an emphasis, but without love, it runs the risk of turning into another mechanism of selfishness and fragmentation: selfishness because the self becomes the point of calibration for attitude and behavior, and fragmentation because of the division that may be caused as we assert who we are without the sensitivity and sacrifice of pursuing the needs of those who are in community with us.

The Creation Part Four: Creation vs. Evolution

July 4, 2009 //
1

(This is a repost from my old blog)

So now that I’ve explained the history, the context, and how a “baptized” version of Evolution looks, I think it only fair that I consider some common objections. If you haven’t already, you may find it best to read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this series before this section as I will be building off of my previous writings to make some points in this one.

First of all, I have to applaud answersingenesis.org for writing a good guide to some very bad arguments. Its a nice primer for anyone who wants to keep up on the debate. That list takes care of a few common arguments, so if you are wondering why I don’t address a particular one, you may want to check that list. Now that I’ve covered all that, its time for a SHOWDOWN!!!

Most arguments saying that God could not have used Evolution are very similar. Essentially they go something like this:

The Bible means what it says and Genesis 1 is no exception. Since the Bible itself is completely inerrant, the days of Genesis therefore must be literal days for the entire Bible to be true. Additionally, if you believe that the earth is older than 6,000-8,000 years, you are arbitrarily picking certain things to believe from a cohesive whole which makes the entire Christian faith a matter of personally choosing parts of the bible to believe.

Its a pretty decent argument, but it makes some very big unjustified leaps of logic. First of all, this argument sets up a straw man. The advocate of this position assumes that if you don’t believe in whatever timeframe they are currently advocating (it varies from 6,000 to 12,000 years depending who you ask), that you completely deny or simply don’t believe the Genesis account at all. Not only is that usually untrue, it is a massive leap in logic as it is completely possible to believe Genesis 1&2 but not take it literally. Here’s a quick and slightly absurd dialog to explain what I mean:

  • Joe: Do you believe that Jesus is the Lamb of God?
  • Bubba: Yeah I think its a great metaphor for Jesus’ sacrifice.
  • Joe: So you don’t believe Jesus really was the Lamb of God?? Are you saying the Bible is lying when it says that?!!

Hopefully no one would ever say that since it is generally acknowledged that portrayals of Jesus as a lamb is metaphor. My point is simply that one can quite truthfully say that they believe the truth of something even if they hold it to be a metaphor. This obviously isn’t true for all points of the Bible as there are many things that must be literal. That is why church history, theological study, biblical scholarship, and honest scientific searching must work together to make informed doctrine.

Secondly, it makes the dubious and arbitrary claim that the story of Creation is the keystone of all biblical understanding, denying the literal verity of this one story invalidates everything else. This would make sense if our understanding of revelation is purely chronological with the most important dogma occurring in the very beginning. However, if you are to believe every easter sermon I’ve ever heard and all theology I’ve ever read, that idea is completely and blatantly false. Time and time again Christians have upheld that the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is the lens through which all scripture needs to be interpreted. Despite differing opinions even during his day, Jesus didn’t seem to care or teach a certain interpretation of Genesis. When taking those facts into account one’s beliefs on God’s chosen tool of creation cannot be made a  central pivotal dogma. That conclusion is also exactly why the actual method and length of the days never made it into the historically accepted creeds of the Church.

Essentially what this argument does is put more weight on the timeframe of creation than on the actual theological principles expressed in the story. That has the effect of forcing the reader to address fairly irrelevant side issues, detracting from the main theological issues in a metaphorical reading that affirm the message of the Creation story.

That is the most common form of argument against Theistic Evolution, but in this article Answers in Genesis provides a few more objections. Here they are, with my responses:

1.  Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

I dealt with the problem of death in part 3, but it is a very valid question to be addressed. Lets take a look at what the curse actually says:

“By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Genesis 3:19.

This is spoken directly to Adam and not to the animals. If one takes into account the fact that Adam was made in the image of God, this passage would indicate that God is revoking immortality from Adam that was part of the original creation. There is no indication in Genesis 1-3 that the animals didn’t die. In fact its a little ridiculous to believe that God created carnivores after the curse. So, what does that say about the nature of God? Nothing that isn’t said everywhere else in the Bible. Never in the Bible is the death of animals a moral issue or an issue puts into question the character of God. The point of Genesis is that the pinnacle of Creation, the images of God Himself, chose to disobey and thus brings about suffering and death upon themselves.

2. God Becomes a God of the Gaps

Not really. This is only true if you believe that the Universe could have created itself and just needed a few kicks from the good old supreme being to get it going. A much  more biblically sound way of thinking about the Universe is commonly called Panentheism. This is the belief that everything is in God, but God is transcendant and not bound by what exists. So in a sense, every bit of the physical realm is a manifestation of God and all physical laws are miracles powered by God. This means that the evolution of the Universe isn’t its self-creation, but very much God’s work of Creation and part of the universal movement towards God’s promised eschatology.

3. Denial of Central Biblical Teaching.

Already addressed above. As they say, there is no reason to believe the Genesis account was not factual and literal, but there is also no reason to assume it must be literal.

4. Loss of the Way for Finding God

I don’t know of any Theistic Evolutionist who would say sin is part of evolving, simply a straw man.

5. The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined

I have no idea what the argument here is since it isn’t actually explained. But man’s position relative to God is the same with both forms of Creation and the miracle of the incarnation is diminished in neither.

6. The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

Paul does indeed compare Jesus to Adam, but both comparisons are about archetypes. As far as Adam goes it doesn’t actually matter if he was a real person. The metaphor is saying that through Adam (or whoever the original sinner was) sin entered the world, and through Jesus salvation came. Its an inductive logical fallacy to assert that since one part of a metaphor is mythological, the second part is also.

7. Loss of Biblical Chronology

The actual time period of the bible is not  actually theologically relevant as I’ve explained in part 3, so the main point of this “danger” is irrelevant.  The ancillary 2 points though are worth considering.  The first one, that one can pick and choose what to believe is a very important but would take a full book on church history and hermeneutics to properly explain why and how things are considered doctrinal. The second one is also dubious, since having an old earth doesn’t change the fact that Jesus will come like a thief in the night.

8. Loss of Creation Concepts

Ex nihilo creation is preserved with theistic evolution since nothing would exist without God creating still. The order of planetary creation isn’t really important theologically, but the fact that man was created last is. Both interpretations affirm this though.

9. Misrepresentation of Reality

The author asserts here that the bible is authoritative on science as well as on spirituality. This is would be true if the bible were written to be a science text book, but it simply isn’t meant to explain science. It is very much a product of a pre-scientifc time, and refers to the earth as flat and square supported by pillars.

10.  Missing the Purpose

This is a little silly. If you believe that God has a purpose in creation, its pretty ridiculous to say that just because he used evolution, he suddenly has no purpose. Sure its a contradiction in terms to combine something without meaning with something that has meaning, but in this case God explicitly gives it meaning.

The Creation Part Three: Evolutionary Theology

July 4, 2009 //
0

(This is a repost from my old blog)

There’s been a few times in my life when I’ve been asked to explain my thoughts on the Creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2, this series is an attempt by me to explain my interpretation of Genesis and the reasoning behind it. Its my prayer that I and all who read this may approach the subject with humility and faith looking to God for answers.

So now that we’ve considered the history and context of Genesis 1&2, lets move on to the theology of it, along the way exploring what a Creation theology that embraces Darwinism would look like. First of all, what are the most vital points of the Creation story that? Christian theology and dogma relies heavily on the following points:

  1. God Created.
  2. Humanity was created in God’s image.
  3. Man sinned and was cursed because of it.

The first point I believe is pretty obvious and self explanatory. It goes right along with the very first verse of the Bible “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” God is the most important actor in the Creation myth. Without God nothing is and nothing will be. The Bible is pretty clear that the universe did not create itself.

Secondly, and very important for a lot of Jewish and Christian theology is the idea that Man was created in the image of God. No one really knows for sure what that idea means, but it separates Humanity from the entirety of the created order. From the beginning humans are set apart for a special purpose as the very pinnacle of creation, an integral part of God’s grand plan.

Thirdly, and especially stressed by a lot of evangelicals is the idea of original sin. God setup a paradise for Adam and Eve with only one rule: do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet, we went and did it. From then on sin became an endemic part of the human experience and with it the curse of death, toil, and suffering.

You probably noticed that I did not include the length of the days as an important theological point. I did that for one very important reason: it’s really completely irrelevant. God is not any less God, nor is creation any less created if the days of his creation were exactly 24 hours, or 24 hours and 16 minutes long, or even if they were 47,899 years. Additionally, there are no passages later in the Bible that make reference to the days of creation requiring that they be exactly 24 hours to make sense. As Augustine said: “we should not think of those days as solar days…. He made that which gave time its beginning, as He made all things together, disposing them in an order based not on intervals of time but on causal connections” [emphasis added]. We should really think of the days not as literal risings and settings of the sun — after all, three of them were before there even was a sun — but more as metaphoric logical dividers that setup a pattern later on for the sabbath rest.

So, how can these three most vital points work with Evolution? Quite easily really. First of all, for a Theory of Evolution to be Christian it absolutely must affirm the first point. Evolution must be a God guided, God instigated, and God powered process. Secondly, man must be created in the image of the Creator. This is a little more difficult to enumerate, and Theistic Evolution sometimes causes objection with this point since it affirms that man is similar in some ways to animals. But from a Christian perspective it also emphasizes that there is a huge gap between Adam and apes in that man is the pinnacle of the creation process explicitly endowed with God’s image.

Lastly, there is the issue of sin and the curse. This is understandably a big stumbling block for many people. The problem is that evolution, with its long time frames and evolutionary failures, requires death to even operate. However, Genesis 3 is when God explicitly curses humanity with death. So it would seem that there was no death before the first sin. This assumes two things: first, that no creatures ate during the first three chapters and secondly, that the first three chapters of Genesis are literally the way creation happened and are not stories meant more to explain theology and to make a point.

The first assumption applies to both Theistic Evolution and Young Earth Creationism. I don’t know of any interpretations of Genesis holding the belief that digestive systems were created after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, so lets assume that creatures of all types functioned essentially the same before sin and after it. Therefore every animal in the Garden of Eden had to eat something. I’ve heard it argued by some biblical literalists that the animals in the Garden were all vegetarian, but that is not only a little silly but denies the fact that plants  would have had to die en masse to feed these ravenous herbivores. Secondly, that assertion assumes that God “adapted” all the future carnivores after sin was introduced, essentially “evolving” them to fit a niche as of yet unfilled. It becomes a rather counter productive argument when phrased that way. Theistic evolution on th other hand usually deals with this issue slightly differently, which leads me to the second assumption.

Many Theistic Evolutionists prefer to skirt this whole issue and assert that the Creation stories are mythology meant to explain theology and put the supernatural into more understandable terms. This, as I’ve touched on in part 2, is not a new idea by any means but a fairly established belief in the Christian tradition. Essentially for a Theistic Evolutionist this means that death has always been a part of Creation. Theologically this is difficult to explain, but Augustine says it well: “For He has wrought them all in His wisdom, which, reaching from end to end, governs all graciously; and he leaves not in an unformed state the very least of His creatures that are by their nature subject to corruption, whose dissolution is loathsome to us in our fallen state by reason of our own mortality.” Simply put, just because man was created immortal doesn’t mean that animals were meant to be the same way.

Theistic Evolution is the belief that God chose to use Evolution and perhaps even the Big Bang as a means  to create. It meshes well with accepted scientific evidence and doesn’t contradict the Bible, however, it does necessitate a belief that God inspires and works through mythology.

That is a quick overview of the theological basis and issues with Theistic Evolution, unfortunately due to time and space constraints I may have to go more in depth if I ever get around to writing a book.

The Creation Part Two: History

July 4, 2009 //
0

(This is a repost from my old blog)

There’s been a few times in my life when I’ve been asked to explain my thoughts on the Creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2, this series is an attempt by me to explain my interpretation of Genesis and the reasoning behind it. Its my prayer that I and all who read this may approach the subject with humility and faith looking to God for answers.

Growing up in the evangelical church I’ve always assumed that Christians have always seen the days of Creation as literal 24 hour periods and the creation story as a factual historical account. I assumed that church theology was unanimous on this right up until atheists and other ne’er-do-wells attacked Christianity with Darwinism. It really wasn’t until a couple years ago when I was introduced to theology and church history that I realized that Christianity has never been in total agreement on what exactly the time frame or the method of Creation was. Yet, amazingly enough this has never been an an issue of mandatory dogma in the Church. Lets look at a few of the early church fathers and their views on the days of Creation and its relation to the science of the day.To begin, lets consider Origen, an early church theologian. In his book Contra Celsus he responds to Celsus who is a critic of his an other Christians’ works. In book 6 chapter 60 Origen responds to Celsus’ comment: “By far the most silly thing is the distribution of the creation of the world over certain days, before days existed,” saying:

‘…we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”‘

Secondly lets look at an obscure theologian by the name of St. Augustine. There’s an excellent article here that gives a wonderful overview of Augustines treatise entitled The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Its really intriguing to a modern Christian like I, that while Augustine staunchly defines his interpretation of the Creation stories as literal, it is entirely different than what we now normally think of as “literal.” I strongly suggest you read the article, but to summarize Augustine makes several points:

  1. The interpretation of the Creation stories is difficult and not at all obvious.
  2. The interpretation of the stories needs to be fluid and account for new observations about our earth.
  3. We should not make statements about what the bible says when it flatly contradicts what we know from observable facts.
  4. Extra-biblical knowledge is important and even necessary for responsible interpretation.

St. Basil the Great had a slightly different view of science, but an important one as well. In his first homily of the Hexameron he addresses some of the finer points of cosmology from his day. He quite well frames and debates some common theories, but ends saying that since we will not know the fullness of the universe’s complexity lets not get bogged down in debating details like the philosophers:

Do not let us undertake to follow them for fear of falling into like frivolities; let them refute each other, and, without disquieting ourselves about essence, let us say with Moses “God created the heavens and the earth.” Let us glorify the supreme Artificer for all that was wisely and skillfully made; by the beauty of visible things let us raise ourselves to Him who is above all beauty; by the grandeur of bodies, sensible and limited in their nature, let us conceive of the infinite Being whose immensity and omnipotence surpass all the efforts of the imagination. Because, although we ignore the nature of created things, the objects which on all sides attract our notice are so marvellous, that the most penetrating mind cannot attain to the knowledge of the least of the phenomena of the world, either to give a suitable explanation of it or to render due praise to the Creator, to Whom belong all glory, all honour and all power world without end. Amen.

This is definitely a different approach than Augustine but yet they have a very similar underlying message: we may never know the exact details of the Creation, but we need not be afraid of new developments in science as we have the most important assurance of all in that “God created the heavens and the Earth.”This is an extremely small sampling of the various opinions on science and Creation held by the early church fathers, and I urge you to take a look at some other sources as well for more info. There are many fathers who believed in a literal 24 hour creation day, and others who interpreted the stories as metaphor for many other things. Simply put though, all these differing opinions are part of the extremely varied and beautiful pattern of historic Christianity.

See also:
Early Church Fathers on Genesis
Creationism & the Early Church (an extremely well researched work)
To be continued.

The Creation Part One: Mythology

July 4, 2009 //
0

(This is a repost from my old blog)

There’s been a few times in my life when I’ve been asked to explain my thoughts on the Creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2, this series is an attempt by me to explain my interpretation of Genesis and the reasoning behind it. Its my prayer that I and all who read this may approach the subject with humility and faith looking to God for answers.

Until fairly recently I would have been extremely offended by the title of this blog post. However, in studying Postmodernism and its very literary view of the world I’ve come upon a very different understanding of mythology. Simply put, mythology is a collection of stories which may, or may not, have any factual basis, but seek to explain the origins of certain, usually natural, phenomena. To repeat: the word myth in literary terms makes no claim as to the actual verity of the story. So with that definition in mind, lets explore the ancient Hebrew creation stories of Genesis and why they were written.

First of all, its vitally important to understand in what context these two stories were written. All around the Israelites at this time were nations asserting the power of their violent warrior gods. These nations had their own accounts of how the world came to be, and most often for them it originated from violence. Of particular note at this time was the Babylonian story of creation. I think wikipedia sums it up best in saying:

According to the Enuma Elish, which has the closest parallels with Genesis, the original state of the universe was a chaos formed by the mingling of two primeval waters, the female saltwater god Tiamat and the male freshwater god Apsu. The two waters engendered six successive generations of gods, at the end of which the god Marduk slew Tiamat, cut her hide in two, and used one half to form the earth and the other half to form the firmament of the heavens. (The Euphrates and the Tigris were believed to emerge from the eye-sockets of the slain Tiamat – a faint trace of this can perhaps be seen in the river which emerges to water Eden in Genesis 2). The gods then consulted and decided to form mankind, whom they made – in seven pairs, male and female – from clay mingled with their own spit and the blood of another slaughtered god. Mankind was set on earth to be the servant of the gods, while Marduk was enthroned in Babylon in the Esagila temple, “the house with its head in heaven,” near his ziggurat of Etemenanki, the Bible’s Tower of Babel.

The Babylonian myth is a very violent and almost disturbing story, especially for a modern reader. The world is created from chaos and violence — more theologically important though, out of death and war comes human life. Naturally in a war-torn Mesopotamian context in which only the strongest nations survive this made for some excellent theology.

In direct contrast to this story we have the theology of Genesis. The Hebraic mythology gives us a God who creates ex nihilo and entirely without violence. There is no chaos, but a very deliberate creative act culminating in the creation of man, who is quickened by the very breath of God (lit. spirit). The most stunning contrast to the Babylonian story though is that the Israelite God then goes on to live at peace with man, wanting direct fellowship with him. God even walks in the garden with Adam and speaks to him regularly. The capricious gods of Babylon however, only created humanity as an afterthought to be their slaves. There is no desire expressed whatsoever by Babylonian the gods for a relationship with their new creation, but instead demands of tribute and praise. One last point of contrast is that suffering and death (particularly murder) did not come about from original sin in the Babylonian version. War, murder, death, and suffering were a necessary prerequisite for man’s advent.

Where we had senseless violence in the Babylonian story, we have purposeful creation in Genesis. Where there was slavery and war in Babylon, there is freedom and peace in Israel. Where God was law and love, Marduk was matricidal and capricious enough to throw laws at humanity only as an afterthought to his orgy of death.

The contrast really couldn’t be more strong in the two myths, and there’s no question that this was deliberate. The Israelites were constantly bombarded with theological attacks in the form stories like this, so it was only reasonable, necessary even, form them to create their own myths, reflecting their unique God. The Creation in Genesis was written partly as a political statement against Israel’s neighbors, but mostly to highlight their own God as a god who is not indifferent or capricious. For the Israelites, He is a God of love involved and living with His creation right from the very beginning.

However, there is one interesting and particularly glaring similarity between the accounts though. They both use essentially the same cosmology. In both stories the earth is “built” like so:

  • The Heavens
  • The Waters Above (from where rain comes)
  • Firmament, sun, moon, stars (to hold back the waters)
  • The earth
  • The waters below

This is intriguing not only because its so different from our own understanding, but in that the Israelites incorporated the most up to date knowledge of their universe into their Creation stories not appearing to care in the least that the same views were shared by their pagan enemies.

To be continued.

Must America be Monolingual?

April 8, 2009 //
0

I just finished reading Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, and was rather intrigued by one of the points he makes regarding the duties of the public school system:

Great streams of immigrants were flooding the United States from all over the world, speaking different languages and observing diverse customs. The “melting pot” had to introduce some measure of conformity and loyalty to common values. The public school had an important function in this task, not least by imposing English as a common language.

The flow of immigrants and the need to integrate them is the same as in Friedman’s time, but public opinions of English being the only and primary language in education have changed. In several places across the southern US Spanish is used as a primary language in schools. The arguments for this are generally quite practical: most people in those areas simply don’t speak English, but will benefit greatly from better education. All true, but there are other issues as well that need to be addressed. Is this dangerous to national unity? Will fragmented communities arise that don’t share the American ideals if we allow cities and individual communities to break from the common language in their education?

I would argue that language probably a more important factor in the isolation of a specific community or culture than perhaps even their own cultural practices. If a family exclusively speaks Mandarin for example in the US and has no facility for English, it will stay a Chinese culture. However, at the point that English penetrates that family it introduces an entirely new paradigm. New vocabulary, new ideas, new metaphors, all with few exact equivalents in Chinese culture enter the family structure and begin to open it up to not just experiencing the external culture but allowing the family to genuinely interact with it. Or to put it another way, the Americanisms instilled in the everyday language begin to enter a person’s thoughts allowing understanding and true integration to occur.

This is exactly why education in English is important in the US if we want to retain loyalty to the core ideals of our founding. If we eventually have entire generations of Americans growing up without learning English and not having their reasoning and communication framed in the language in which our values are woven, America ceases to be the healthy conglomeration it historically prized and will become a loose grouping of parallel cultures.

This is a question that forces our ideas of freedom and individuality to conflict with the national community ideal of an American “melting pot” culture, and doesn’t have one easy answer. The solution is far from as easy as simply saying “Everything must be in English!!” That way lies Xenophobia and racism. Education in America needs to instill the common language but at the same time allow for the great variance of cultural expression that makes this country unique. So, should The United States be monolingual? Never. However, if Americans want to retain the beautiful thing that is the interweaving of cultures within the framework of American ideals, we absolutely must encourage English as the primary language of all citizens.

An Evangelical for Obama: Abortion

September 10, 2008 //
3

This is the first part of a series on why I, as an Evangelical Christian, can support Barack Obama and the Democratic party.  It was originally posted on the Smidgin.

When talking with other Evangelical Christians about my support for Barack Obama it is not uncommon to encounter incredulity as to how I could vote for a Democrat, much less one as liberal as he is.  So, for my own edification and to help others understand, I will try to lay out my reasons as best I can.

To begin with, I will look at those traditionally Democratic positions that Evangelicals tend to disagree with.  From there I’ll turn to other campaign issues that I find important.

Before I begin, however, let me lay out a few ground rules for myself and others:

  • My purpose here is to present why I support (or can support) Obama, not why I oppose McCain.  While some reference is obviously needed for positioning, that will not be my main focus. Don’t expect a lot about McCain.
  • Following upon that, I aim not to avoid negative statements in favor of more positive reviews.  The one possible exception to this will be in the area of character, which does influence my opinion.

Now, let us proceed with the first part.

The Democrats and Abortion

Probably the most common objection posed by Evangelicals who learn that I support Obama is: “He’s pro-choice.  How can you support that?”  This is especially true since the selection of Palin as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

The first thing to note is that I am still unequivocally against abortion.  The second thing to note is that the pro-life/pro-choice debate in this country represents not one tragedy, but two. One tragedy is well known: abortion means the killing of a human life, tantamount to murder.  The second tragedy is not often stated, but equally important: the term “pro-life” has come to be framed solely in terms of the abortion debate.

Simply put, my willingness to support Obama is not because I have ceased to care about abortion, but because of the very fact that I am pro-life.  Let me explain.

The problem is that “pro-life” has come to signify “anti-abortion.”  In reality, pro-life should represent exactly what it says: pro-life in every area.  This means to be pro-life is to oppose the traditional threats to life: abortion, euthanasia, etc.  But it also means that to be pro-life is to oppose any infringement upon the gift of life: unjust war, capital punishment, and policies that favor one group of people while injuring another.  If we are going to be for life, we must be completely and totally for it.

When seen in this light, I am dissatisfied with both parties’ stances on life.  My decision to support the Democrats, then, is not a sell-out, but an educated choice as to which party has a better grasp on the issue of life at this moment in time.

War in Opposition to Life

To some people my reasoning may not make sense yet.  When looking at the issues above, it is much easier to see how abortion is anti-life than many of the others.  The very idea of abortion is that of blatantly disregarding human rights to inflict damage, in this case death, upon a living being.  The idea is so graphic and emotional that it is hard to move beyond it, but that is what must be done.

The most relevant issue which can be placed across from abortion is that of the current war in Iraq, especially the controversial interrogation techniques.  (When considering this, it does not matter whether the invasion of Iraq was justified, etc., so don’t expect that to be addressed here.) The Bush administration, with the backing of the Republican party, has drifted dangerously towards sanctioning techniques that are recognized as torture by the international community.  It has also repeatedly opposed the extension of habeas corpus to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.  If examined from a distance, it becomes clear that the policies at Guantanamo Bay involve the blatant disregard for human rights in an attempt to inflict damage on a living being.

Before continuing any further, let me address several concerns.  Many would contend that those detained at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists and therefore do not deserve to be accorded rights.  This is wrong for two reasons.  First, it is written into the very core of the American ideal that every human being is accorded rights.  Second, the refusal to charge many of these detainees casts serious doubts upon the assertion that the detainees are terrorists.

A second concern, related to the first, is that this does not compare to the scale of abortion.  I believe, however, that it does.  The denial of basic rights, especially where torture is concerned, sets a dangerous precedent for the future of this country.  This precedent affects us in several ways.  One is in our foreign policy, which I will cover in a later post.  A more important result is in our domestic policy, and the willingness of the government to engage in policies contrary to human rights, stooping even to the level of torture, an assault upon life.

My final comment on torture is that as an Evangelical I do not stand alone on the issue: An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture.

Beyond the issue of torture, the current War in Iraq also represents a disturbing loss of life: approximately 90,000 civilians have been killed since 2003.  This is in addition to untold damage to life, health, and property.  Whether or not the war was the right choice, it is clear that its execution, especially in the early years, was done without proper knowledge of the country and culture of Iraq, resulting in an extreme threat to life and a serious challenge to its justification using the Just War Theory.

If this is the case, the War in Iraq represents a assault upon a culture of life.  While the relative merits of beginning the war can be debated, it is clear that there have been decisions made that, whether through negligence or maliciousness, have resulted in serious threats to life.  In light of this, the Republican assertion that it is the pro-life party is difficult to maintain.

Presenting this argument is difficult, of course, because abortion and the War in Iraq are two very different things.  My goal, however, has been to show that both sides of the political spectrum lack a true culture of life.  This is important, as it shows that my decision to support the Democrats does not contradict my ideals.

Finally, I don’t believe I have done this particular defense justice and I would like to see Laura, with whom I have talked this over before, write her own position.

Capital Punishment and the Issue of Life

While the issues of torture and war are primary for many people in my position, the idea of capital punishment is also a problem for me.  This is an issue which I find particularly compelling as an Evangelical Christian, and have written on it before.  I will try not to rehash my words here.

Again, I consider it necessary to be completely pro-life if I claim that title.  While I recognize that those convicted of heinous crimes have torn the moral fabric of society in such a way that there must be special considerations taken in their punishment, I do not believe that death is the correct choice.  If we are going to assert that life should be preserved, then life should always be preserved.

There are good arguments for the death penalty based on precedent, deterrence, and the idea that criminals have forfeited their right to life.  When it comes down to it, however, given the choice to be pro-life in all we do I believe we must not make exceptions.

An obvious weakness to my argument is, of course, the Just War Theory.  In brief I would address that by saying that with capital punishment we hold a life in our hands which does not threaten others.  With war, however, inaction can mean further crimes against life which we would then be guilty of.  Unfortunately for us, and contrary to what some people seem to believe, the world consists of more than simply black and white.

Shifts in the Democratic Plank

To round off my consideration of the issue, it is necessary to draw attention to the recent modification of the Democratic plank on abortion.  In the past the plank has read:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

In the 2008 platform, it has been changed to:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption program

While this is obviously not the stance I would like to see on the issue, it does represent progress.  The Democratic party is making it clear that abortion is, for them, undesirable, if necessary.  This provides the hope that the two parties will be able to work together, whatever their final stance on the issue, to reduce the number of abortions.

Conclusion

In my beliefs and and ideals I remain unwaveringly pro-life, in the true sense of the word.  If you want a better sense of what that truly means, I would encourage you to read The Gospel of Life, by Pope John Paul II (Amazon).  The Catholic Church, it sometimes seems, is the only institution that truly understand what it means to be completely pro-life.

Since I don’t believe either political party has a monopoly on the protection of life, I refuse to be a single issue voter.  Voting Republican simply because the ticket is anti-abortion is a shame and a waste of one’s decision making power.  That is not to say that the abortion issue should not weigh on your decision.  But in my case, as I hope I’ve made clear, the assumption that being anti-abortion gives the Republican party a claim to pro-life does not work.  In my judgment the Democrats this year, as led by Barack Obama, have an equal claim on the ideas and ideals of the issue of life.  Thus I can, without moral qualm, give my support to their campaign.

Re: the ‘F’ word Part 1.

September 2, 2008 //
0

It is certainly possible to be both a feminist and a Christian. In many cases it is absolutely necessary for Christians to be feminists if they want to see the Truth of God extended to the destitute and needy. As a Christian, I see at least 2 very clear examples of feminism as necessary expressions of faith.

1. International development

Christians are obligated to promote social development on a global scale. Certainly this agrees with the bible (James 1:27 advocates providing helping widows and orphans calling it “Pure and undefiled religion”). Social development involves instituting many basic tenants of feminism including advocating woman’s suffrage, promoting women’s education, giving women the ability to choose in issues of marriage, and forwarding equal rights between women and men in all things politically and socially. Studies have shown that birth rates decrease, infectious diseases and malnutrition decrease, and professionalism increases in developing nations where women’s education is promoted. It is our duty as Christians to plead the case of women suffering in developing nations, and the feminist language of equality, rights and liberties is often the best way.

2. Feminism for the sake of evangelism

Evangelicals may find that feminism is also necessary for the promotion of the gospel in nations that both 1. Lack clear equality between the sexes AND 2. Where Christian women vastly outnumber Christian men. A case in point is the Japanese church. In a recent trip to a somewhat male dominated Japan, (.46% of the nation is Christian), I was surprised to see the disproportionate number of women to men in church. Upon questioning my Japanese friends regarding this, I learned many Christian women are married to non Christian men who are often far too busy with their professional roles to go to church (I also learned that it is rare to have a female boss). As I unraveled this cultural issue, I wondered if increased equality between the sexes now might lead to more receptivity to the gospel on the part of men in Japan in the future. That is to say, if men and women work together more instead of deferring to traditional gender roles, this would not only lead to more “sharing”, but it would also lead to men being more open to their Christian wives’ views and Sunday activities.

What to do about anti-woman biblicisms: go polemic

The most common ways to diffuse the multiple sections of biblical literature which preach female subservience (ie mutilation of women who assert themselves to defend their husbands Deut 25:11-12, Prolonged female uncleanness after having born a daughter [twice as long as if she had born a son] Lev 12:2-5, the rulership of men over women Gen 3:16, women being created for men’s use I Cor 11:8-9, silencing of women in church I Tim 2 11-14, etc.) is by:

1. Pointing to other sections of scripture where women are in fact exceptional trail blazers, example: Esther, Ruth, Deborah…

2. Claiming individual passages taken out of biblical context.

3. Advocating the relativism of scripture to the societal norms contemporary to the times of its writing.

It is absolutely necessary to frame all that is ‘biblical’ in terms of the cultural and historical context of its writing. This means that first we must divorce the notion of “book” from bible and instead look at it as a series of books all with unique purposes, functions and stories of origin (the church didn’t have a bible until late 4th century). The bible was written over the course of more than a millennia, during which nationalistic shifts and religious developments created more than just nuances to Hebraic society. Indeed, pre-dating the establishment of the Jewish nation we have the story of Adam and Eve. From this story (if you are brave enough to take it literally) one finds that acceptable ethics changed between the establishment of the human race and the establishment of the Jewish nation (it was during the establishment of the Jewish nation that oral tradition was being established as written history and the foundation of the old testament was being recorded). After all, if incest was unlawful as Jewish law points out, then how did Eve’s sons/daughters copulate lawfully?

Such transitions of acceptable social norms have endured to this day. To read the bible in the 21st century is to ask how we translate the meaning of scripture into our own cultural terms. It is through this process of translation that anti-woman statements may be discredited on the basis of newly revealed historical facts, or on the basis of being culturally untranslatable/ irrelevant for our times. Of course, this is very offensive for many fundamentalist-scriptural-authority touting types. However, it is a way out for struggling Christian feminists who embrace feminism alongside the truth of the Gospel.

Personally, while I support the role of feminist assertions for the purpose of societal development on a broad scale, I see that modern modes of justice often seem falsely totalizing. At best they will only be crude forms of temporal justice. We cannot fit the infinite God into the box of equality, universal rights and absolute liberty, so we mustn’t filter him through a feminist based world view.

Further more, I think that feminism has as much to do with individual God fearing man-woman relationships as chauvinism. I do not mean to equate the two, for as the former blogger pointed out, feminism should not be construed as a prejudice against men. However, the danger that both mindsets pose to true loving relationships is this: they both may become rooted in the autonomy of the self, rather than service to the other (Note: the autonomy of the self and the vital well being of the self are often very different from one another). If we are to follow Jesus in our relationships, the way we relate to others must be about dying to our own autonomy, not defending the autonomy of the self to the very last. Advocating feminism in order to serve others is absolutely acceptable, (especially in the case of a neighbor who is being mistreated by an abusive husband) but when it comes to asserting your rights to defend your own autonomy, this is certainly as bad as any man asserting his gender role as a justification to put a woman in her place so that he might defend his autonomy. Selfishness and love do not mix, but thankfully love looks beyond selfishness.

« Older Entries