Should I Believe Jesus Was A Bachelor?

A lot of words have been spilt over The Da Vinci Code and its historical claims.  I am about to spill some more, but not in service to a specific apologetic refutation.  My concern here is to try to answer whether there is a good philosophical reason to believe if Jesus was a bachelor or if Jesus was married.  So here is my shot at a good reason to believe the proposition “Jesus was a bachelor.”

There is no warrant for the belief, “Jesus was married.”

In a rough syllogism (you must forgive any rather rough roughness):

1. It is better to hold beliefs with greater warrant than to hold beliefs with less warrant.


2. The belief “Jesus was a bachelor” has greater warrant than the belief “Jesus was married.”


3. It is better for me to believe “Jesus was a bachelor.”

Unless you are an epistemological relativist or deep skeptic, line 1 is, I think, obviously true.  The burden of proof is in line 2.

As Kevin and Brian have debated in my earlier post, I believe the state of evidence in the Gospels, early church theological development (the Epistles), and early Church tradition, is such that the belief that Jesus was unmarried was generally accepted as true.  The NT scholar Darrell L. Bock makes this case in an article on Beliefnet.  Another respected NT scholar, Craig Blomberg, appeals to not only the silence about Jesus’ supposed marriage, but offers at least one positive argument against it.  He notes:

Specifically, there is not a shred of historical evidence that Jesus ever married Mary Magdalene (or anyone else) or ever fathered children. As Darrell Bock points out in his recent Christianity Today review (January 2004, 62), such information would certainly have been included in 1 Corinthians 9 where Paul appeals to the fact that Peter and various other apostles had wives when they received material help from the churches. In supporting his right to receive such help, Paul would have wanted to appeal to an even more convincing example-Jesus-if it were available. I would add also that with the very early veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Roman Catholicism, largely out of a desire to have a quasi-divine female figure along with God the Father, had Jesus ever been married, such a woman could scarcely have disappeared without a historical trace.

Is it trite or even tautologically unimportant to offer this argument in service of the belief that Jesus was a bachelor?  If the Christian worldview believes in the importance of truth, then it is not.  If the evidence of a possible belief is 50/50, and the consequences of holding that belief are insignificant (like Mary’s mole on her shoulder), then it may not be as important.  If we had better than 50/50 evidence to warrant Mary’s mole, then one belief should be held rather than the other even if the consequences of that belief are minimal to nonexistent.  But marriage seems to me to be of a different order, and certainly the evidence is not 50/50 one way or the other.

Rights vs. Spiritual Growth

I thought this quote from today's Oswald Chambers reading was worthwhile:

Whenever our right becomes the guiding factor of our lives, it dulls our spiritual insight.

There are higher goods in this world besides my own wants, needs, and even rights.

The Da Vinci Code: Bracing My Faith Against Jesus' Marriage

Twice now I have specifically heard this reaction to the claim in The Da Vinci Code that Jesus was married: it doesn’t matter that Jesus was married or not-it doesn’t change who he was.

When that thought is expressed in the form of a question to Christians opposing the message of the book and movie, it is intended to be a kind of stumbling block intended to befuddle the Christian who has never thought about the merits of Jesus’ bachelorhood, and to open up room for the claim that maybe he was married to Mary Magdalene. I do not know off the top of my head if there are any good theological or philosophical objections to Jesus being married, but I am almost sure there are some. I don’t think that is the right immediate response to that question, however.

The proposal that Jesus was married, and that it isn’t a big deal, is a red herring: it is the wrong question given the context of The Da Vinci Code and all the historical documents relating to Jesus’ life.

The reason Christians should defend the proposition that Jesus was not married is that it is true. It is akin to defending the proposition that George W. Bush is the current president of the U.S. or that Caesar Augustus was ruler of the Roman Empire at such-and-such a time. Truth matters. The truth of historical detail matters and those truths help identify historical figures as who they really were, what they really stood for, and what their followers uphold today.

All the reliable sources about the life of Jesus do not entail his marriage to anyone. The only sources claiming any such marriage were written long after Jesus’ death by those who wanted to change the Christian message.

A friend told me of a Christian co-worker whose reaction to The Da Vinci Code included the conclusion that it doesn’t matter to her whether Jesus was married. She is doubtless trying to exhibit a strong faith, but what it betrays is in fact a powerful anti-intellectualism. It does matter whether Jesus was married because that is a significant feature of his life and all the reliable evidence points to him being a bachelor. Our friend does not need to posit a faith that can stand up to the possibility that Jesus was married because it is false that he was.

It is akin to saying that it doesn’t matter to my faith whether Jesus was born to a Roman noble family in Carthage. I simply don’t need to brace my faith against that possibility.

Civility about The Da Vinci Code

The wide range of responses to “The Da Vinci Code” movie continue to proliferate. Organizations representing South Korean Christians and others in SE Asia plan not only protests, but hunger strikes and attempts to thwart the screening of the movie.

So far, I like John Leo’s take on the whole thing. In his latest column, he notes both sides of the debate:

Tom Hanks thinks Christians shouldn't become irate about "The Da Vinci Code." He says it's just a story, "loaded with all sorts of hooey and fun kind of scavenger-hunt-type nonsense." He's right, but so is an official of the Christian Council of Korea, who said, "'The Da Vinci Code' is a movie which belittles and tries to destroy Christianity."

In the end, Leo argues for civility and rationality to take the day instead of censorship and prejudicial finger pointing.

It is good to hear Tom Hanks say that, and of course, he is right on. The problem is too many people are blinded by whatever epistemological failings or prejudicial opinions about Catholicism to see that truth. There are too many anecdotes of believers rejecting their faith because of this book, and of non-believers assuming the book validates all their worst hunches about Christianity to ignore.

I would love some help with this little conundrum. If the Church history and art history in The Da Vinci Code are such easily exposed frauds, why do so many people take them as truth?

Remixing Worldivew?

Denver Journal - 9:0209 - Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire. by Craig L. Blomberg

This review of Colossians Remixed caught my eye for a lot of reasons, and admittedly Dr. Blomberg's basic endorsement of the book was one. I have not read the book, but I have read a lot about it and now this review puts me in a position of wanting to go ahead and read it.

In recounting the book's point of view, Blomberg notes this about its argument about worldivews:

A worldview that is truthful and viable, as it turns out, must share five characteristics: (1) comprehensiveness in scope; (2) coherence or internal consistency; (3) sensitivity to justice; (4) humility and openness to correction; and (5) ability, at least in part, to be put into practice.

It seems to me that this list misses something crucial and contains something ad hoc. The test of truth is ultimately coherence with reality. "Internal consistency" is the kind of notion that could apply to all sorts of false and even abhorrent worldviews. Whether one is able to justify one of their beliefs with another of their own beliefs is not what makes their worldview true. Truth, I believe, is not tested within a framework of beliefs, but in the interface of those beliefs with the outside world.

And then "sensitivity to justice" seems like a personal idee fixe by the authors to me. Certaily good Christianity is sensitive to justice, but is that really a crucial condition of a truthful and viable worldview?

Abuse, Statutes of Limitations, and The Church

At a non-profit human resources seminar I attended I heard about what is now a state law in Colorado wherein the statute of limitations for filing a civil case regarding alleged abuse by an organization was lifted.  A person can now file a law suit against an organization/corporation for alleged sexual/physical abuses done umpteen years ago.

The threat to churches is obvious.  Coming off the heels of the Catholic abuse scandals, the number of suits filed against Catholic and Protestant churches has multiplied.  In California alone, where the statute of limitations was lifted for one year, hundreds of cases were started against the Catholic Church.

The kicker, though, is that the laws in California and in Colorado are insufferably myopic.  Of all the institutions that are the cause of physical and/or sexual abuse, the public school system leads the pack and is left out of this law.  In fact, the greatest number of reported abuse cases concern family and friends, and the least number of reported/alleged cases comes from churches.  The laws in these states skip right over every other context for abuse and head straight for churches.

This piece written by Charles J. Chaput, the archbishop of Denver, details several statistics, the shape of the law, and what I think to be the primary driving force behind its passing-dollar signs.  Abuse is horrible and justice should be sought out and done whenever possible.  But if justice for the abused were the motivation, why are the vast majority of the abused left out of this law?  Dollar signs.  State laws put a cap on awards granted to plaintiffs who win these cases against public schools.  No such cap exists on cases against churches.

Here are some excerpts:

In judging it, however, we need to consider the bill’s basic fairness. Any revision to civil statutes of limitations must be comprehensive, fair, and equally applied. This almost never happens. The data clearly show that the sexual abuse of minors is not a disproportionately Catholic problem. In fact, some of the worst adult sexual misconduct with minors occurs in public institutions, particularly public schools. But in most states, those schools enjoy some form of governmental immunity. In other words, it’s far easier to sue a private institution, such as a Catholic diocese, than it is to sue a public-school district. It’s also a lot more lucrative since, even if governmental immunity were waived, public schools and institutions usually enjoy the added protection of low caps on damages (in Colorado, $150,000). For exactly the same sexual abuse in a public school and a Catholic parish, the difference in financial exposure is millions of dollars.

Worse, as Shakeshaft [Hofstra University expert on public school sexual misconduct] points out, “national data indicate that few [public school] administrators report educator sexual misconduct to the police or district attorney. When this abuse is reported to the criminal justice system, it comes from parents or others.” And reporting patterns in public schools “show that when students do report [educator sexual misconduct], they are often ignored. Teachers and other staff in public schools are often moved from school to school when allegations emerge, rather than the school attempting to remove the teacher from the district.” This is exactly what many Catholic dioceses have been accused of in the past, but with devastating financial consequences for the dioceses.


There is an inequity hardwired into the whole national discussion of sexual abuse. Catholics can live with hard laws if they serve the common good—but the laws need to be equally hard for all offending persons and institutions, with the same rules and penalties and no hidden escape clauses.

To Hell, Or Not To Hell? Is That The Question?

Some may need to forgive the analogy, but figuring out the theological position(s) of the emergent movement must be what it is like trying to catch a greased pig. In this recent Q&A with Out of Ur, Brian McLaren talks a bit about his views on hell and judgment. There is much in what he says to be affirmed and echoed. He believes that at times the church has become hung up on the details of hell a bit too much to the detriment of ethical and kingdom living in the here and now. He says such things as:

…if we can identify some people as God’s enemies, hated by God for all eternity, we can find ourselves directly disobeying Jesus’ clear teachings about loving our neighbors and our enemies.

This next excerpt is interesting for two reasons. First, on the surface, most of it is obviously true and I can imagine even some hard-line brimstone preachers agreeing with it:

For example, I think God will be far more displeased by our carelessness toward the poor, or by our lack of peacemaking, or by our unrecognized racism and nationalism than he will be about whether you’re an exclusivist or not.

The second reason is it interesting is its slipperiness. In a style overwhelmingly typical of emergent types, McLaren constructs a false dichotomy, hence labeling and nearly slandering his detractors, and inserts his political views to boot. And all of this comes in a semantic package that reminds me of the chocolate-coated pill in The Princess Bride: it makes it go down easier. Often we find ourselves swallowing the pill and nodding in agreement before we are able to dissect the dichotomy.

There is absolutely no warrant to insinuate that exclusivism is inherently incompatible with such things as peacemaking, fighting racism, and care of the poor. McLaren accuses old-line evangelicals of living in a myopic world, and one cannot but help get the feeling that in reaction, McLaren’s world is no less so.

To add vaseline to the oil, McLaren’s initial reaction to the issue of hell and judgment is pastoral but evasive:

… in the end I’d rather turn our attention from the questions WE think are important to the question JESUS thinks is most important.

The obvious implication? People who believe in and teach a real hell and the need for a real decision for Christ are not in-step with the concerns of the very Jesus himself. Matthew 7:23, 8:12, 22:13, 25:46, Mark 3:29, and Luke 16, to name a few passages, disagree. And the thread through them all was summed up by Paul in Romans 10:9-10.

The theological path forward is not about vilifying traditional evangelicalism. It will doubtless involve some painful reflection from time to time, but there is an old saying about babies and bath water that needs heeding.

Is There Any Distinction Anymore?

Against Wikipedias (For Scholarship)

It appears students are citing Wikipedia articles in their philosophy papers. I wonder how many students are losing what in the past might have been an inherent grasp of what is meaningful, thoughtful and scholarly. One is driven to ruminate whether the proliferation and ubiquity of media that are inherently unaccountable is blurring the line between the genuinely real and the piecemeal fabrications of postmodern society.

Christian Education

One of the more influential trends in evangelicalism in the last decade has arguably been Christian schooling-be it homeschooling or private Christian schools. In an article titled, “Confessing our Weaknesses,” World Magazine founder Joel Betz notes some of the failings and shortcomings that exist is Christian education. He remarks it is important to examine these, especially as Christian education has largely received a pass on critique due to its own foundation as an alternative to “failing” secular education. It seems sometimes that if something has the label “Christian” on it and is a response to secular culture, it is immune to most scrutiny.

Belz provides a short list of such critiques and two of them especially caught my eye.

2. In our support and development of textbooks and curriculum for our new programs, we have sometimes backed materials that were just as propagandistic on our side of issues as were the materials that so infuriated us from the secular side.

3. We have too often offered parents nothing more than a "cleaned up" version of secularism. We've removed the ugly parts, but the product we've offered hasn't always been thoughtfully Christian—even though that's what we said we were offering and what we charged tuition for.

These, I believe, are two very trenchant remarks. They speak to a cycle of education theory that has probably not received enough deep thought: Christians complain of secular indoctrination and poor academic standards in public schools, and react with their own form of indoctrination and artificially propped up academic standards.

Indoctrination does not produce deeply rooted disciples of Christ. And, in my opinion, there needs to be a great deal of good thought poured into what it means to teach pre-college academics from a Christian worldview. What does Math or History look like from a well-rounded Christian worldview? Do we just learn about Christian history or about history with tools from the Christian worldview?

Being involved with a study center ministry that offers college classes done from a Christian worldview, I am especially aware of the failure rates of Christians on secular campuses. A survey conducted by CCCU recently showed that over 99% of evangelical students attend non-CCCU institutions-that means they attend secular universities and colleges. Barna recently showed that between the ages of 18 and 30, 58% of evangelical students leave the church.

Wrapped up in those stats are plenty of students who have attended Christian schools or who have been homeschooled. These are no panaceas.

The solution is NOT to stop sending Christians to University; it is to learn how to mature and deepen the Christian lives of students before they get there.

The "Gospel" of Judas Strikes Again

I want to say a couple more things about the Gospel of Judas primarily because every now and then I catch word of Christians, or at least nominal Christians, who are either confused by the book or out-and-out taken in by it.  It has been disheartening to hear of some who have bought the hype about the book hook, line and sinker.

Thanks to Steve at Out In The Sticks, I ran across this article by the New Testament scholar, Blomberg, detailing much about the Gospel of Judas and the controversy surrounding it.  A couple of excerpts:

Furthermore, Ehrman (like Elaine Pagels, who is quoted on the front book jacket, and numerous other scholars whose personal religious pilgrimages have left them with transparent axes to grind against historic Christianity) has yet to demonstrate that any of this diversity actually reflects mid-first-century Christianity rather than merely mid-second century Gnosticism. All the rhetoric about the Gospels that lost out to censorship by the orthodox Christians fails to disclose one fundamental feature of the early discussions on the canon: no one, to our knowledge, not even the Gnostics themselves, ever proposed that these later Gospels should be included in the New Testament!

I like that point-all this “gospel” and the other Gnostic gospels are able to support is conjecture about second century Gnosticism, and noting about early Christianity.  More from Blomberg:

The acceptance of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John cannot be reduced simply to the choices of the winners in ancient ecclesiastical politics. But the vehemence with which some people keep repeating this mantra shows that in our increasingly postmodern, ahistorical world, history today can be rewritten and re-invented by those who shout the loudest, whether or not they have the necessary supporting evidence!

I agree with his assessment that we are in a cultural milieu in which it is frighteningly easy to rewrite history and get the masses to believe you.  Historical fact no longer carries the place in our collective conscience it used to.  If you ask me, it is a little frightening.  Blomberg says something to that effect:

It is hard to know whether to laugh or to cry when one encounters people who think that literature of this kind forms some kind of threat to historic Christian faith.

Here is a little from Blomberg’s conclusion.  I love this:

What is really sad are the Christians who tell others not to read books like the Gospel of Judas at all (or to see movies like The Da Vinci Code). What a wonderful opportunity for believers to become informed and share intelligently with their non-Christian friends whose interest has been sparked in Christian origins in ways that pure scholarship alone seldom accomplishes.

Christianity, at least full-blooded Christianity, has its mind open and all its rational capacities turn on!

A companion article in Books and Culture Magazine quoted from the Gospel of Judas, and the point is that it is odd.  If you know your canonical Gospels, this does not sound anything like Jesus.

"Jesus said, 'Truly I say to you, for all of them the stars bring matters to completion. When Saklas completes the span of time assigned for him, their first star will appear with the generations, and they will finish what they said they would do. Then they will fornicate in my name and slay their children [55] and they will [… ] and [—about six and a half lines missing—] my name, and he will […] your star over the [thir]teenth aeon.'"

I wrote a small piece in terms of how one might approach talking about the Gospel of Judas with someone who is convinced of its authenticity and claims against orthodox Christianity.  It was written for a one-minute radio spot, so don’t expect a three-point, footnoted apologetic response.

  

Postmodern Ethics: Social Evil, Individual Good

I ran across this fascinating little column by Denis Prager in the L.A. Times.  It details what I would label as a postmodern ethical trend in public schools.  He tells the story of asking a room full of high school students if they would steal from a department store if they were sure they would not get caught.  In front of cameras taping for a syndicated pilot, the majority of them raised their hands.  Based on this and his experience speaking to youth, Prager draws a handful of conclusions regarding public education and moral development.  The whole article is worth a read, but a couple of points in particular stood out to me.

In these two conclusions Prager notes how morality is abstracted to the social level and not applied on an individual level, and that when moral demands are made of individuals they regard health and not personal vice and virtue.  In his words:

To the extent that schools deal with right and wrong, it is in the arena of social values, not personal behavior. Students are taught what the schools deem correct positions on matters of social concern — such as war, the environment, social justice — but little about personal integrity. At the entrance of a highly regarded Los Angeles public school, there is a sign calling for world peace in four languages. Other signs on campus similarly exhort students to adopt various social positions. Not one sign addresses self — as opposed to social — amelioration.

To the extent that demands are made on young people, they concern health, not integrity and character. Smoking, for instance, is villainized. Copying software, downloading music without paying for it, cheating on tests, lying on insurance claims are not.

Now, the things decried in these two points ought to be decried.  The problem is that they are moral points pressed to the exclusion of personal virtue.

I call this a postmodern moral condition for a couple of reasons.  First, because postmodern morality is inherently relativistic, all individuals are exempt from moral judgment and are then by definition “good.”  Secondly, and ironically, in our postmodern milieu, it is popular to make a certain type of moral judgment-namely judgments that are relatively nebulous and corporate in scale.  So, it is commonplace to hear pollution, greed, violence and the like labeled as “bad,” but never connected to personal moral evil.  A typical exception may be the moral hypocrisy of labeling big-business leaders as evil but failing to label the same evil traits in others as evil.  Thus it appears that evil is a function of influence and not of personal vice.  Moral relativism is the kind of view that is not only self referentially destructive, but it also destroys the rational capacities of those who adhere to it.  

Thus, in Prager’s example, the youth were able to justify personal vice because they viewed a certain type of corporate entity as evil.

The Christian ethic is clear: societies, groups, corporations, etc., can commit evil, but culpability ultimately rests on individuals.  What was the Nazi regime but a collection of individuals, some of which were so evil and influential they were able to illicit tremendous evils from others?  Look at this from the angle of retribution or the enactment of justice for evil committed by a regime.  The Nuremberg trials did not condemn Nazism to the gallows-it condemned several individuals.  How is a collective to be punished if not individual by individual?

In addition, the Christian ethic explains how corporate evils come to be: they are the result of individuals making evil or sinful decisions.  Individuals have within them the capacity for great sin, and thus their influence sometimes leads to great evils on large scales.

It is moral cowardice to selectively label collectives as evil and not recognize or acknowledge the potential evil inherent in each and every individual.  It is the equivalent of naming everything we personally favor as “good” and everything we personally dislike as “evil.”  When that happens, both words become vacuums of meaning, infinitely malleable and ultimately completely useless.

Stem Cells and The Political Fog

This article in the NY Times highlights what the lack of information and clarity can do for an issue as important at embryonic stem cell research. Throughout, the piece assumes that embryonic stem cell research is the only form of research and that, according to a view expressed in the article, anyone opposed to it “oppose[s] the science.”

Unfortunately, as long as the truth about adult stem cells is clouded in political fog and obscured by pharmacological profit, embryonic humans will continue to be used and destroyed as vote-getting cannon fodder. Not once does the article mention the gains of adult stem cell research or its immunity from the ethical debate, and it is hard to tell exactly why. It is possible that the author doesn’t know that ESCs have produced no viable clinical results and that ASCs have already produced over 50. It is also possible that the author didn’t mention those kinds of facts because the senatorial candidates she covered were both so uninformed that they never raised the issue either. Either way, it is depressing and a little disconcerting.

The article’s author had at least one opportunity to mention the scientific as well as the ethical debate, but failed. She wrote:

Although scientists see hope in embryonic stem cell research for treatments and cures, opponents view the studies as immoral because the cells are extracted from human embryos.

There is far more to this issue than that, and it ought to be noted when it is raised.

One of the Senatorial candidates made this bifurcating statement:

"There are people of principle who disagree with this form of research," Ms. McCaskill told her audience. "I respect their principles. But what I don't respect is someone dancing around science for political cover."

It seems to me that politicos who avoid the real-world advances of adult stem cells are dancing around the science for political gain.

I have to admit that it still baffles me how this issue can remain so shallow and obscured in the public eye.

Desperate Call for Pentecostal Theologians, Educators, Pastors, Etc.!

Who's Who in Pentecostalism--ministers, leaders and preachers in the Pentecostal movement--Beliefnet.com

I must admit, being a Pentecostal minister, this list is a little depressing. Admittedly, it comes from Beliefnet.com, but it is probably fairly accurate. I was surprised to find Al Sharpton (maybe more suited for the "Most Influential Pentecostal Hair-Care Products" list) and Joel Osteen on the list.

Relevance and Capitulation?

This wonderful article by Mark Bauerlein in the Chronicle of Higher Education, A Very Long Disengagement, articulates well the current lifestyle consequences of the modern student and challenges universities to not bow to cultural forms which perpetuate the various character vices he exposes.  Fundamentally, the article lists several academic arenas in which college students are failing miserably, and connects them with the kind of activities students engage in which separate them from a thoughtful and meaningful interaction with the world around them.

Instead of engaging academically, they spend more time on TV, on email, in on-line chatting, and text-messaging.  Instead of learning the actual ins and outs of current civil issues, they get their news from Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show.  Bauerlein notes:

“A January 2004 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that comedy shows like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart "are now mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news." A story on the report in The Hollywood Reporter began, ‘To a young generation of Americans, Jon Stewart may as well be Walter Cronkite.’”

Clearly most 20-somethings have no grasp on the difference between humor and reality.  (Which is another fascinating post waiting to be written.)

But what grabbed my attention as much as anything was Bauerlein’s final plea with the university system.  Instead of bowing to these powerful cultural trends, he implores:

“Or one can accept the political philosopher Leo Strauss's formula that ‘liberal education is the counter-poison to mass culture,’ and stand forthrightly against the tide. TV shows, blogs, hand-helds, wireless ... they emit a blooming, buzzing confusion of adolescent stimuli. All too eagerly, colleges augment the trend, handing out iPods and dignifying video games like Grand Theft Auto as worthy of study.

That is not a benign appeal for relevance. It is cooperation in the prolonged immaturity of our students, and if it continues, the alienation of student from teacher will only get worse.”

I want to know if the evangelical church’s lust for relevance has done the same thing.  Could that last sentence be retooled as: “It is cooperation in the prolonged immaturity of our congregants, and if it continues, the alienation of believer from God will only get worse.”

In trying so hard to be relevant, have we ended up in capitulation?  Os Guinness quotes James Davidson Hunter (I think) as noting that if you dine with the devil, you had better use a long spoon.

In other words, if you want to use the tools of modern or postmodern culture to grow the Church of God, which have been refined in a workshop not friendly to Christian sensibilities, you need to stay pretty far away from the source.

If an emerging pastor wants to distance herself from truth, she has used a short spoon and swallowed far too much of the devil’s soup.  If a postmodern pastor wants a community to form faith instead of the Faith forming the community, they are probably already stuffed and can eat little more.

Instead of making disciples, have we perpetuated a non-committal form of radical individualism and consumerism?  Being relevant is one thing, being relevant with cultural forms that inherently separate people from the truth of the Gospel is another thing altogether.

Music and Worldview Influence

This is a fascinating article detailing one community’s efforts to curb thuggery and gang-related behavior. In order to either calm down the thugs or get them to move off a piece of property, the store owners or city will pipe classical music through the sound system. From the article:

Research in the UK and America tells them that youths who congregate around precincts, upsetting traders and shoppers, can be calmed down by piped classical music.

Not only is this a great and unobtrusive way of dealing with unwanted elements, but it speaks to the worldview influences of music as well. Many argue on a casual level that music is “just” music and has no particular effect on people. Here in Colorado, many are especially sensitive to that argument as a result of the Columbine High School tragedy and the influence of Marilyn Manson’s music on the killers.

Another article out of the UK mentions a similar initiative in a train station. In this case the stated intent is not just to possibly calm the raucous element, but also to bore them out of the station. The article states:

Classical music will play in Walthamstow bus station to deter schoolchildren from hanging around upsetting the public.

The idea is not to soothe them but to bore them out of bad behaviour.

These articles simply mention almost in passing that classical music has one effect, but that thus conveys the other side of the coin, the obvious violence-inducing effect of other kinds of music.

Music conveys and encourages certain worldviews. When was the last time you watched a horror flick set to Vivaldi? (See possible exception below?) Horror movies, gang-related movies, and their ilk are intended to reflect a certain corrupted and debase view of reality, and the music that they are set to does the same.

In the formation of worldview, music is not an innocent bystander. Classical music requires attention, patience, work on the part of the listener, cannot always be easily memorized, and is often immensely complex in its layering. Rap “music” requires little to no attention, no reflection or analysis, no patience, and is often set to the same computer-generated music over and over and over. Classical music engenders a reflective attitude toward reality and promotes positive and constructive social interaction. Hip-hop “music” plays to the animalistic part of our natures and discourages contemplation, human flourishing, and positive social interaction.

Some will remark that there is much in Classical music that is “dark,” and they would be right. But there is still no comparison between Wagner and Ice Cube. When Wagner and others plumb the depths of human misery and evil, they do so with an elevated and developed sense of human dignity and potential; possibly even with remnants of Christian psychology in their pieces. When Ice Cube opines about evil, he is like a broken mirror with no depth or substance to his work. One reflection of evil and the “dark side” generates virtue, the other generates vice.

Possible Exception?
When I discussed this idea with my lovely and talented wife, Heather, she immediately thought of A Clockwork Orange. If you know the work, you know the protagonist is a sadistic killer who gathers inspiration and solace from Classical masterpieces. Is there a relationship here between Burgess’ message and the worldview analysis above?

As we talked it through, we decided there wasn’t a solid analogy between Burgess’ protagonist and your average gang member. If someone is a sadistic killer, they will likely find inspiration in any place, and it really may not say anything about the inspiration. It will say much more about the twisted reason of the killer. Your typical thug does not have a well-reasoned worldview, and they may not have the mental tools to analyze the worldview influence of the music they listen to. All they tend to know, as the second article above mentioned, is that Classical music is “boring.”

The Consequence of Vice

This article in the San Francisco Chronicle caught my eye for several reasons. It details a “protest” initiated by popular youth leader Ron Luce in San Francisco against “the virtue terrorism” of popular culture. It was intended to draw evangelical students together for concerts and speeches designed to reinforce a biblical worldview of morality.

Sounds pretty good to me. I don’t exactly agree with Luce’s militant tone and his combative pitch, but it seems good to reinforce a movement that is counter-cultural in the ways described in the article. You can read about Luce’s program at its website.

It seems to me that the more the classical virtues are encouraged in teens, the better culture will be. But not everyone sees it that way. In fact, S.F. greeted the “protesters” with its own counter protest. And the invectives flew with alacrity. One city official called the evangelical teens a “fascist mega-pep rally.” From the article:

Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco,…told counterprotesters at City Hall on Friday that while such fundamentalists may be small in number, "they're loud, they're obnoxious, they're disgusting, and they should get out of San Francisco."

In an example of “fueling the fire,” this excerpt contains militant language from Luce and a backhanded reply by the article’s author:

"Are you ready to go to battle for your generation?" he asked, and the young people roared "yes!" and some waved triangular red flags flown from long, medieval-looking poles.

They were not just “poles” or “sticks,” they were medieval-looking.

What I want to reflect on, though, is exactly how corrupting immorality can be. I am not arguing that all the San Franciscoites quoted in the piece are overly evil, just that they subscribe to a worldview that is licentious, and extremely short on virtue. (Contemporary tolerance, by the way, is not a virtue.)

It is amazing to me that students who are striving to be good spouses, good students, good children, and good citizens are chastised as fascists. The reason this happens, I believe, is that when biblical morality is abandoned it is not long before vice becomes virtue and virtue becomes vice. This is a town that revels in public pornographic displays of sexuality and erupts in a tizzy of faux righteousness when they are called into question. Yet, when kids get together to not have sex or to not get high, they call it evil. To those from the worldview exemplified by many in S.F., the meanings of “virtue” and “vice” are completely and perfectly reversed.

In the kind of dizzyingly hypocritical comment that is becoming all too common these days, the S.F. Board of Supervisors acted:

Earlier this week, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

In this statement, and so many like it, tolerance is an incredibly thin and narrow view of the world. And, darn it, if you disagree with it, don’t expect an ounce of tolerance.

Bravo to those students. And may they know that they are not only on the side of history, common sense, and good reason, but of the Creator of the universe as well.

Postmoderns, Christians, and Worldviews

I am in the middle of reading David Well’s final book in his wonderful four-book series, Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ In A Postmodern World.  The book has a lot to commend about it, and though I am only just over half-way through, I thought a couple of things deserved comment.

At the top of the list is his dismay at certain circles in the church who apparently are trying to assimilate postmodernism instead of confronting it.  In a phrase interesting to those familiar with Niebuhr’s categories of cultural engagement, Wells states, “Yet confrontation is always at the heart of the relation between Christ and culture because that relation is one of light and its relation to darkness, truth to false belief, and holiness to what is fallen.” (p. 164)  That strikes me as right.  As he goes on to argue, instead of figuring our how to be relevant (in his words to “reach” our culture by becoming like it), we should be confronting postmodern culture on a worldview level.

In accord with what I have mentioned before, Wells argues in the same chapter that in spite of all its verbal wrangling to the contrary, Postmodernism is a worldview and deserves to be analyzed and critiqued as such.  A very long time ago I posted that Postmodernism contains in it the seeds of the destruction of the church if we become too Postmodern.  Wells agrees: “This casual embrace of what is postmodern has increasingly lead to an embrace of its spiritual yearning [one argument in the book is that it is individual spiritualism disconnected from truth and religion] without noticing that this embrace carries with it the seeds of destruction for evangelical faith.” (p. 158)  His specific examples of such embrace include Middleton, Walsh, and McLaren.  (A poster once remarked that if only I read Walsh I would understand how accurate the postmodern take on epistemology is.  For the record, I have read Walsh and that is why I no longer read much of Walsh.)  

One of Well’s takes on these seeds of destruction is a take on the Greek words for love, Agape and Eros.  Christian, God-like love is Agape.  It begins with God reaching down to sinful humans and their response is enabled by His grace and revelation.  We engage a Truth-something bigger than ourselves, universal, transcultural, and absolute.  Eros love is the only kind of love left when we have become postmodern.  Because there is nothing we can grasp outside of our selves, our love begins in us, looks like us, is in accord with what we want to believe, and ends with ourselves.  Given the epistemological and metaphysical nihilism inherent in Postmodernism, there is no Other with which to engage.  We are all we have access to and all we really need to have access to.

Are All Redemption Stories The Same?

I heard a fellow make an interesting argument on the radio this week regarding Islam and the rest of the religions of the world.  His argument belied two very deep misunderstandings and quite a bit of the bad reasoning so prevalent in our culture today.  His primary argument was that Islam should not be considered a religion because it did not have a theory of redemption (I must admit I am impressed he used the word “redemption”).  His support was that all the other major religions of the world have a theory of redemption that is peaceful, and therefore religious.  Islam, according to him, was violent and therefore did not have a theory of redemption and was then not a religion.

First, I think it could be argued that Islam most certainly does have a theory of redemption that is caught up in works that please Allah.  And in certain important ways, the path of redemption is a violent one.  “Convert or Die,” contrary to popular opinion today, was perfected by the Muslims well before the Middle Ages, and how often are we told that one of the reasons there are so many suicide bombers is their promised reward beyond death?  The fact that one path of redemption is violent does not exclude Islam from the category of “religion.”

The next problem was implicit in the fellow’s argument.  It was the assertion that the rest of the religions of the world were basically the same because their theories of redemption were basically the same.  That “sameness” to him was the peaceful nature of each theory.  That is a little like arguing that all political theories are the same because they are political-or that all people are basically the same person because most of them have two eyes.

The peacefulness or lack thereof in a religion’s redemption story is not a significant factor in determining their identities.  Christianity argues for a redemption process that begins with God speaking, moves to sinful humans responding in His grace, and finishes with God’s act of sacrifice securing resurrection.  Buddhist redemption begins with the individual deep in contemplation and meditation, and ends with a recycling of the soul back into this material world.  The two theories are completely incoherent with each other.  Either one is true and the other is false, or both are false.  It cannot be the case that both are true.

ADHD Worship

I have encountered and classified a new form of worship.  I am calling it ADHD Worship.  It is classified by the incessant movement of people who not only break out into song from time to time, but use worship time to meet and greet friends, play at dancing together during the faster songs, and nearly never pay attention to the song or the worship leaders.  And of course, during the choruses of fast songs, you are required to jump up and down (the white man’s version of Gospel “creative movement”).

Now as many of you know I grew up in a Pentecostal tradition, and still am part of a worship tradition that is known for its penchant to move from time to time in ways uncomfortable for most Presbyterians.  I have seen rowdy crowds of worshipers, but that is not what I am talking about.

It is said that ADHD kids are OK learning while they are moving around.  So here we have a setting in which apparently the best way to engage God is to become mobile, social, and unfocused.  People often complain that evangelical worship is susceptible to being a concert-well, this is a concert.  In fact, most intimate concert setting I have been in have shown more decorum and respect than this experience did.

It strikes me that for all our evangelical experimenting with worship styles, this has to be one of the lowest forms on the food chain.  Take traditional church hymnody, remove 80% of the theology, simplify the melody and chord structure, never stress reverence and awe, encourage an incredibly privatized form of experience, open the aisles for “meet-and-greets,” and viola you have ADHD worship.  

I am interested in the sensibilities this creates in people, especially young people.  Will they have the capacity to encounter God in worship in reverence and respect?  Will they learn that encountering God is always a matter of emotional highs-even if they have to manufacture it?  Will they deepen their grasp of doctrine or will they develop only a devotional relationship with God?

What happened to God’s still, small voice?  Don’t we need to be quiet, focused, and attentive to hear that?

Jeremiah on Pastoral Plagiarism

I apologize again for the long time between posts.  It has been a busy few weeks.  But fortunately for me, I ran across this passage in Jeremiah this afternoon.

I have posted before on the problem of pastoral plagiarism, and how pervasive it has become.  With the volume of readily available sermons through tapes, radio and the internet, it is abundantly easy for a minister to copy sermons, if not point for point and joke for joke, take enough of the substance to actually plagiarize.  This passage from Jeremiah 23:30-31 makes my point clear.  I quote from The Message:

30"I've had it with the "prophets' who get all their sermons secondhand from each other. 31Yes, I've had it with them. They make up stuff and then pretend it's a real sermon.

In the larger context, God complains the false teachers/prophets are claiming to speak for Him when they haven’t even spent time with Him or in His Word (v. 18).  So the reason the “prophets” were not giving “original material” is because they failed to pay attention to God.

Do too many of our pastors today commit the same mistake for maybe the same reason?  Are some of them too busy being corporate executives and marketers to be listeners of God?

I know the issue of plagiarizing material on a book that has been spoken on billions of times is tricky, but surely we can call a spade a spade.  If a pastor, on a regular basis, does not do the work of trying to connect their congregation to God for this week, then something may be amiss.