Friday, January 18, 2013

Last night I was privileged to sit in on a lecture at Alberta Bible College given by Dr. Irving Hexham, a scholar of world religions who teaches in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary.  Irving is a Christian, but his professional life centers not only on his own faith choice but on all religions.  In the course of his work he regularly writes and lectures on the place of Christianity in our religiously pluralistic world.  The lecture was very good.  New info for me concerned the widespread impact on prominent theologians of Thomas Paine.  I knew of Paine and have read some of Paine, but I certainly didn't know that he had impacted Feuerbach and Wellhausen.  I don't know enough of the latter two to say if Hexham has this right, but if he does, I find it very interesting.

Hexham's main point was that Canada is experiencing the same kind of demise of Christianity that much of Europe has experienced, and he offered reflections on this and a challenge for churches to do something about it.  What I appreciated most was his call for intellectual engagement on the part of evangelicals.  Many times I have heard people talk about how so and so went to university and lost his or her faith, or about how so and so became too smart or too educated for Christianity.  The latter comments I have always found very strange, and the comment about university students losing their faith I find very unfortunate.  In both cases I find that the problem is not that students or others start to be challenged by thoughts that are too deep or that are irrefutably critical of religious faith.  It is actually exactly the opposite.  This is even the case for graduate students who go to seminary or who study religion or, specifically, Christianity in any academically rigorous environment.  The problem is not that they look too deeply into things, but that they so quickly in their searches think that they have fournd irrefutable challenges to religious perspectives.  I am often surprised when I read athiests or hyper-critical scholarship at how unsubstantiated their opinions about faith systems really are, but one may not see this upon a cursory glance or after taking a couple of university level courses in religion.  That despisers of religion find something unproven in Christianity or some other faith does not mean that their perspectives are  proven, or even that they are intellectually profound, but many of those with faith never allow their searches to take them to a place where this can be seen.  Nor do faithful people allow room for the fact that while someone may successfully challenge some feature of Christianity or another faith system, this does not constitute a refutation of the entire faith system.  Instead, faithful people are often like teenagers who hear from their peers something that contradicts the beliefs or values of their parents, and without even knowing how to check out the truth of the opinions of their peers, they accept them because we all tend to have a bit of a rebellious streak.  So, when we hear something that contradicts the faith system in which we were raised, we immaturely accept the validity of the challenges, without really doing the intellectual investigation needed to be discerning.

No doubt part of our problem is the general lack of intellectual discernment and unwillingness to explore ideas in print (people don't read!) that so typifies our society.  And, of course, it is getting worse.  This accounts for so much laziness, sloppiness, and lack of concern on the parts of evangelicals when it comes to thinking seriously about faith.  It is so easy to continue just to believe and trust either 1) the shallow, not very discerning stances that our faith has often taken, leaving us as believers unequipped to deal with challenges; 2) the insufficiently defensible positions that challenge our simplistic, not very discerning faith systems, leaving us unbelievers who unsuccessfully dealt with these challenges, when really there is so much more that should have been considered.  Obvioulsy, neither of these options should be selected by anyone with the ability to do otherwise.

So, I would say Dr. Hexham has it right that the church must promote something different than the simple acceptance of belief claims coupled with ignorance regarding the challenges that will continue to face Canadian Christians.  He may have overstated the problems we have in sending our children to Christian schools.  These don't have to be intellectual ghettos that simply reiterate the same faith claims we have always made while closing our ears to our challengers.  I think it is wise to have our children very well grounded before they face challenges  on the world's terms; it is best to see them first in environments that will challenge them, where they can face new perspectives, but where they can reflect upon such challenges in a context that inculcates faith along with serious intellectual rigor.   But when this has taken place, or when individual Christians have been well prepared at church or at home, there is simply no reason to fear intellectual challenges to our faith, or to be put in environments that will educate in challenging ways, because we must prepare people who can not only remain faithful but who can state their faithfulness in compelling ways before the world - a world into which they must enter in order to be the church in the world.

Friday, January 11, 2013

We Need So Much More Than Gun Control

While I think there are good reasons to think seriously about controlling the availability of some firearms, because they can so easily be obtained for misuse, I wish I could see far more wise attention paid to the factors that are responsible for the monstrous, escalating societal problems that are making inevitable at an increasing rate acts of violence (as a general trend, over the last several decades - even if in the immediate past there has been progress in this), gross selfishness, a lack of civility, economical irresponsibility, the denigration and suppression of basic morality, and bigotry towards all things religious. I grew up in a society that, while it had many problems, in general was, in my opinion, "better" in many key ways than what is now present. In many areas there has been positive progress, but these do not outweigh, to my mind, the ways in which we are worse off, and are worsening.

Some examples.  1)  Society has taken many positive steps toward responding to homosexuality in less prejudicial, more loving ways, but at the same time it has rejected the Christian perception of homosexual acts as sin.  You can have one (more love) without the other (relaxing the Christian perspective on what is sinful), but this is not the route we are following.  We should not and cannot forcefully bind Christian moral principles on society, but society is unwise in departing from this standard where it has been freely and well applied.  Allowing gay/lesbian marriage or the adoption of children by gay/lesbian couples is a choice society must be freely allowed to make, but these particular choices are at least as destructive as the prejudicial treatment of gays and lesbians.  And of course I have not mentioned the moves made in society to prevent those who find homosexual practice immoral from freely exercising their faith in uninhibited ways.  What I have written here in no way reflects a hatred of homosexuals, but no doubt someone would want to make such a claim, and for this they would find public support.  That is, to my mind, a far more prejudicial perspective than what I actually hold toward homosexuality, but many fail to see this and continue to think in prejudicial ways toward those whose religious beliefs require of them that they think of homosexual acts as sin.

2) Society has created irresponsibility on the parts of many citizens who survive by taking advantage of social programs that are too easily abused, and we insist on blaming everyone and everything for this problem other than our refusal to hold people accountable.  The other side of this, of course, is that it is a good thing on a large scale to offer social programs, to assist those with all kinds of needs, to give people every opportunity and advantage to succeed and to help provide for them when there is deprivation.  I am grateful that there is so much awareness of the needs in our society and so many efforts made to address such needs.  But as a society we are hugely economically irresponsible, with governmental spending being way too high and taxes being too low. I am afraid that if spending cuts do not take place, if austerity measures are not taken by governments, if taxes are not raised, we will all ultimately suffer the consequences, and there will be less money to help the poor.  We will end up with far more poverty if governmental spending is not reduced.  And it is certainly not just the rich who need to have their taxes raised.  Increasing the taxes of only the most wealthy persons in our society will do very little to correct the huge debt problems of the United States.  For many of us, the reason we do not want taxes raised is not because we will not be able to afford our basic needs, but because we will not be able to afford our luxuries.  And this is as prevalent among my middle-class peers as it is among the wealthy.  Raise taxes for all, cut back on the stupid, huge government waste, and meet the needs of those who need society's help.  It will not be painless, but I don't see a way around these inevitable choices.

3) There is something horribly wrong and degraded about a society that allows free access to and promotes the aborting of unborn children.  This cannot be justified, to my mind, on the grounds of women's rights, economic hardships, or the inconveniences of unwanted pregnancies.  How do any of these attempted justifications adequately excuse the killing of children?  This is not just a departure from the Christian perspective to which I personally hold, it is a departure from civility; it is degraded, narcissistic, barbaric destruction of life, chosen for the sake of convenience and so that we may relieve ourselves of responsibilities and hardships.

These are three examples in which society is making what I would consider to be poor choices, and they are signs of deepseated problems.  I don't expect that in any of these areas we will make huge progress any time soon, but talking about these seems to me way more productive than focussing all our attention on the social evil represented by the ownership of firearms.  Personally, I don't get at all the necessity some feel to have access to assault weapons.  Surely they cannot think that their possession of such weapons is the key to preventing governmental tyranny.  So, I would be happy to have them banned if it means less availability of such weapons to those who would abuse them.  But it is a mistake to think that the banning of assault weapons or limiting our access to handguns is a core solution to the societal problems that lead to violence.  This is the treating of a symptom, and not even one of our most detrimental symptoms of societal degradation.  Actually making progress in preventing violent acts will come with the societal change represented by progress in the kinds of choices I have mentioned above.  

Thursday, January 10, 2013

I Am Just Being Honest

Honesty may be the best policy, but sometimes the ways in which we express our honesty are hurtful to others and calculated to be more self-serving than anything else.  Being open and expressive of your opinions and feelings may gain for you the reputation of "telling it like it is," but at times the hurt you cause with your honesty is unnecessary and counterproductive.  You may just elicit defensiveness on the part of the one(s) to whom you are speaking.  Sometimes gaining a reputation for honesty is coupled with the perception that you are also a bully, or that you are rude, or that you care more about making your own point or even the virtue of being open and honest than you do about the feelings of those against whom the point is being made.  I understand the value in openly expressing how we feel about the words or actions of another, particularly when what we are attempting to bring about is valuable change.  What I don't care for is the need we all sometimes feel to express our disgust before or while or after we suggest change.  So, instead of your hearer(s) being able to immediately react in positive ways to your blunt suggestions, he or she (they) first has to wade through the distraction of your rudeness or hurtfulness.  It is, of course, possible to make suggested changes to others with such care and gentleness that the force of the suggestion is lost or is insufficient to motivate change; there are times when a solid blow struck immediately above the bridge of the nose, between the eyes, seems like the only thing that will gain the desired effect.  But, I find that these cases are actually fairly rare.  Most people react well to carefully chosen, carefully timed words calculated to bring about their best.  It is when they cannot hear the love in your words, but only your negative evaluation of them, that the muscles in their jaws begin to contract.  So, say what you mean, but say it with grace, with tactfulness, with respect and love, and it is likely that the first reaction on the parts of those to whom you are speaking will be that they will openly listen to what you suggest, rather than failing to hear your wisdom and honesty because your disgust filled attitude and rude speech put them off from the the very start.