All religions are not one.

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Brian LePort

Prothero's 'God Is Not One'.

Stephen Prothero is my favorite scholar of religions. I have read his American Jesus: How to Son of God Became a National Icon many years ago and Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know–And Doesn’t.  These books and his popular articles convinced me that he is one of the clearest thinkers on the subject of comparative religion and the sociology of religion. While I appreciate Huston Smith’s writings (and others like him) who seek to find connecting points between religions (e.g. the Golden Rule) I have long felt that many religious scholars oversimplify to a fault. In his most recent work God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World–and Why Their Differences Matter Prothero shakes the reader awake from his stupor with these words (p. 1):

At least since the first petals of the counterculture bloomed acrosss Europe and United States in the 1960s, it has been fashionable to affirm that all religions are beautiful and all are true. This claim, which reaches back to All Religions Are One (1795) by the English poet, printmaker, and prophet William Blake, is as odd as it is intriguing. No one argues that different economic systems or political regimes are one and the same. Capitalism and socialism are so obviously at odds that their differences hardly bear mentioning. The same goes for democracy and monarchy. Yet scholars continue to claim that religious rivals such as Hinduism and Islam, Judaism and Christianity are, by some miracle of the imagination, essentially the same, and this view resounds in the echo chamber of popular culture, not least in Dan Brown’s multi-million-dollar Da Vinci Code franchise.

He mentions Smith’s metaphor that all religions are the same path up the same mountain and then challenges it. Most religions have some basics in common, but they do not climb the same mountain. A Christian waits for a personal God to enact delivery for humanity and the cosmos from the impact of sin through his Son, Jesus. Some Buddhist are atheistic and they don’t have a category for “sin”, per se.

To those who follow Smith’s paradigm he writes (pp. 2-3):

This is a lovely sentiment but it is dangerous, disrespectful, and untrue. For more than a generation we have followed scholars and sages down the rabbit hole into a fantasy world in which all gods are one. This wishful thinking is motivated in part by an understandable rejection of the exclusivist missionary view that only you and your kind will make it to heaven or Paradise. For most of world history, human beings have seen religious rivals as inferior to themselves–practitioners of empty rituals, perpetrators of bogus miracles, purveyors of fanciful myths. The Age of Enlightenment in the eighteenth century popularized the ideal of religious tolerance, and we are doubtless better for it. But the idea of religious unity is wishful thinking nonetheless, and it has not made the world a safer place. In fact, this naive theological groupthink–call it Godthink–has made the world more dangerous by blinding us to the clashes of religions that threaten us worldwide. It is time we climb out of the rabbit hole and back to reality.

Prothero states, “The ideal of religious tolerance has morphed into the straightjacket of religious agreement.” (p. 4) He is correct. It is not that tolerance is wrong, but as Adam Seligman (who Prothero references) states, “…the notion of religious tolerance assumes differences, since there is no need to tolerate a religion that is essentially the same as your own.” (p. 4) If someone says Islam and Judaism are essentially the same they risk misunderstanding both and they offend those who are participants in these religions by claiming a third religion–namely, my morphing of your two religions into one better version that suites my worldview.

Even in the same religion good-hearted ecumenism can lead to ignorant bliss, but such bliss isn’t safe. If we disagree we must discuss it, name it, be honest about it, and ask how we can coexist in the meantime.

On another note, there is something similar about how we discuss religious tolerance and how we frame race. Our view of “tolerance” is the pretend that differences don’t exist and that tensions are not present. We are like scared children who think if we ignore our fears they will go away. Yet the tension between a Hindu and a Muslim will not be resolved by pretending they are the same. Likewise, different people groups cannot live life as if one day we will all just magically understand each other.

I am for tolerance, but tolerance isn’t ignorance. Tolerance doesn’t equate to pretending differences don’t exist. Tolerance falls short of its own goal–both in inter-religious and inter-racial dialogue.

Of course, tolerance is inferior to loving engagement. Tolerance may allow for pretend. It may allow for groups to ignore each other. Love seeks to understand and even disagree where it matters most! It doesn’t have to be done in an ugly way, but it must be done. Otherwise, without engagement between different people groups, we will find a volcano of repressed emotion boiling under the surface of our society waiting to engulf us all.

Categories: Books (General), Religions, Stephen Prothero | 7 Comments

Rethinking history with Keith Jenkins (Pt. 2)

Posted on January 27, 2012 by Brian LePort

In my previous engagement with Keith Jenkins’ Rethinking History (see part 1) I examine his assault on the idea that history = the past, that history is singular, and that history can be objectively understood. Today I ponder his arguments in Chapter Two: “On some questions and some answers”. These are the seven questions he addresses with his answers:

1. What is the status of truth in the discourses of history?

Jenkins suggests that gaining real (true) knowledge is “unachievable”. (p. 28) As discussed in the last post there is a chasm between the event and the historian. We know the event through the traces it has left, but how reliable are those traces? Jenkins says we can still use the word “know”, but he makes this qualification:

We are (our culture is) a-moral, skeptical, ironic, secular. We are partners with uncertaintiy; we have distruved truth, have tracked it down and found it to be a linguistic sign, a concept. Truth is a self-referencing figure of speech, incapable of accessing the phenomenal world: word and world, word and object, remain separate. (pp. 29-30)

Jenkins states plainly, “…truth is always created and never found.” (p. 31) So, we can’t “find” the truth of history, we merely “create” it. This is what we know. Jenkins follows Foucault stating, “…truth is dependent on somebody having the power to make it true.” (p. 31)

Of course, the reader should stop in his/her tracks to ask, “Is Jenkins telling the truth?” Should we find it problematic that Jenkins expects us to believe him when he says, “History is a discourse, a language game; within it ‘truth’ and similar expressions are open, regulate and shut down interpretations. Truth acts as a censor–it draws the line.” (p. 32)

2. Is there any such thing as objective history, or is history just interpretation?

Jenkins says that it is true that we can find “facts” (p. 32) like the year someone was born, but he claims, “…historians are not too concerned about discrete facts (facts as individual facts), for such a concern only touches that part of historical discourse called its chronicle. No, historians have ambitions, wishing to discover not only what happened but how and why and what these things meant and mean.” (pp. 32-33) So it isn’t so much the problem of say know Jesus of Nazareth was understood by people to be the Messiah of Israel (a fairly self-evident fact), but what historians do with that data when they write their histories on Jesus of Nazareth. They are not objective anymore. They import their subjective understanding of Jesus into their discourse.

3. What is bias and what are the problems involved in trying to get rid of it?

Historians are bias. This is a plain fact. Let me use Jesus of Nazareth again. If someone is an atheist they will have no room for the possible historical accuracy of miracle reports. If they are a believing Christian they may have a very hard time denying the accuracy of such reports. There isn’t much to add to this.

4. What is empathy; can it be done, how, why, and if it cannot be achieved, why does it seem so important to try?

So how do we avoid pure subjectivity based on our bias? Many historians suggest empathy. In other words, “the claim that one has to get into an informed appreciation of the predicaments and viewpoints of people in the past in order to gain real historical understanding…” Let me return to historical Jesus studies. Scholars learn as much as possible about Second Temple Judaism, ancient Rome, the geography of the land, the religious beliefs of the people, and so forth. Why? Because if you don’t know the historical context you will import your modern context.

BUT Jenkins doubts that this is all that effective. He gives some reasons for why this is unachievable:

(1) “The philosophical problem of ‘other minds’…[which] considers whether it is possible to enter into the mind of another person we know well…” If we try our hardest to pretend we are a Jew in Jerusalem in the first century can we do it? Jenkins says no. (p. 39)

(2) “For what  is effectively ignored in empathy is that in every act of communication there is an act of translation going on; that every act of speech (speech-act) is an ‘interpretation between privacies’.” If I try to think like a first century Jew as a twenty-first century American it is inevitable that I will translate things from that world into my own. I cannot understand it from their world.

(3) “…there is no presuppositionless interpretation of the past…” and “…interpretations of the past are constructed in the present…”

We can boil down Jenkins’ objection to the distance between historian and events, the need for translation, and they presuppositions we use to filter the data. At the end of the day we are no where near thinking like a first century Jew. We think about first century Jesus through twenty-first century paradigms no matter how hard we try not to.

That said, anyone who has done historical work knows from experience that one’s ideas do alter when we try to be empathetic. We do not obtain objectivity, and we do filter the data, but we move closer to understanding a different world when we try than those who do not. I think Jenkins point here must be taken with a grain-of-salt since he often comes across as “all-0r-nothing”.

5. What are the differences between primary and secondary sources (traces) and between ‘evidence’ and ‘sources’: what is at stake here?

Jenkins makes the assertion that all sources as “surface” sources. We cannot dig any further down. This leads him to the conclusion that we are “…if we are freed from the desire for certainty, if we are released from the idea that history rests on the study of primary/documentary sources…then we are free to see history as an amalgam of those epistemological, methodological, ideological and practical concerns I have outlined.” (p. 48)

I admit, I am a bit surprised by this assertion. Even if our knowledge of history is always on the surface at least primary sources are ground level while secondary sources are a few stories from the ground. There is no way to avoid making history into total mythology if we do not have primary sources. Not all secondary sources are created equal either.

Jenkins asks, “Does the evidence of the past press itself so irresistibly upon the historian that he/she can do not other than allow it to speak for itself?” (p. 48) No, of course not, but it is still the evidence, the data, and not merely a secondary report on the data.

Let’s compare historical work to that of a detective. Reading a newspaper’s account of a murder is not the same as investigating the murder scene and interviewing witnesses. Yes, interpretation is involved, and no we cannot have absolute certainty, but degrees of plausibility and certainty do exist. I am puzzled by Jenkins here.

6. What do you do with those couplets (cause and effect, continuity and change, similarity and difference) and is it possible to do what you are asked to do through using them?

I alluded to this problem earlier: when event A is followed by event B does it necessitate “cause-and-effect”. When a historian says that the United States bombed Hiroshima because of A is it really because of A or is that a construct made by the historian? Is it like a bat hitting a ball pushing it away? Do event work like that or when we do history do we create cause-and-effect?

7. Is history an art or a science?

History isn’t a science in Jenkins’ view, but more like an art. This threatens the guild, because it turns a nose to their methodology and regulations.

 

Categories: Historical Jesus, Historical Studies, Historiography, Keith Jenkins | 2 Comments

Is genuine unity achievable?

Posted on January 26, 2012 by Brian LePort

Earlier today Daniel James Levy posted on the divisions in the church of Corinth (see “The Issue of Division at the Church in Corinth”). For many of us evangelicals the fractions of that local church seem all too familiar. While Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans have placed a high priority on visible unity the rest of us squabble over our uniqueness. Obviously, as a small “e” evangelical I lean toward unity in the midst of diversity rather than unity established through hierarchy, even if that puts us at risk of allowing some devastating doctrines into the mix (partially because I don’t think Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans have avoided false or misleading doctrines either). There is no denial that we struggle with unity because we sense that there are some things that are not compatible with Christianity, yet we don’t agree on how to determine those things.

In addition to our differences in dogma we sometimes part way over race, ethnicity, language, and culture. This manifests itself in many ways including churches that are primarily one skin color or another (so-called “white” and “black” churches) in the United States, churches that have different tastes in music, those that function primarily in English or Spanish, and so forth and so on. While it may be pragmatic at times to establish churches around these differences (have you ever spent time listening to a bilingual sermon?) it is often the case that these divisions harden into serious contentions with one another.

Many good-hearts have sought ecumenism that is actually a form of hegemony. Some Caucasian pastor in California decides that he wants the church to reach Latinos but he leads his church to approach said partnerships in such a way that essentially ignores the unique contributions Latinos bring to Christianity. He may try to get them to use more English thinking he is doing them a favor without realizing that Spanish is a sense of identity. He may ask them to calm down their expressiveness in worship so that others don’t feel uncomfortable. It isn’t done to be hurtful, but it is controlling none-the-less.

Somehow unity must exist in the dynamic relationship between acceptance and critique. Often we think of unity or catholicity as everyone being the same, but this isn’t so (not even in doctrine). Sometimes we think unity is when people agree to disagree. This can be the case, but is it healthy for us to avoid challenging each other so that we can feel unified?

There is no denying that the early church sought visible unity. The Apostle Paul seems consumed by this subject sometimes. The early church fought and bickered over things in hopes of coming together as one (sometimes successfully and other times not so much). Yet I wonder if this side of the resurrection if we are hopelessly seeking something that we cannot achieve.

Even if we cannot achieve it here and now it seems we should pursue it. Much like we know there will be no final and lasting peace before the return of Christ yet we continue to pursue it as a witness to the Kingdom, so we know we will never be fully unified, but if we accept this as inevitable the chasm will widen and we will lose our testimony before a broken world. The world around us doesn’t need to see everyone thinking and acting the same. This seems quite cultic. They need to see us loving one another in spite of differences and through those differences. This is easier said than done.

So is genuine unity achievable? Unlikely, but our witness is not in achieving unity but in seeking it.

Categories: Christian Denominations/Groups, Church, Ecclesiology, Pauline Studies | 4 Comments

The Issue of Division at the Church in Corinth

Posted on January 26, 2012 by Daniel James Levy

In my 1&2 Corinthians class last week we were discussing the issue(s) of division at Corinth and were tying to find near-contemporary equivalents of the issue Paul mentions.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10-16 says:

“I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

As evidently seen from the text, the issue here is one of division (c.f. 1 Corinthians 3:3-4). But the question is what is the division over? Currently I’m reading Kenneth E. Bailey’s magnificent work on 1 Corinthians Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. Every time I open up a book written by Bailey, whether this or his Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, my mind is blown by his meticulous scholarship. Bailey does his homework. Back to the issue of division. He notes that Corinth was a melting pot in the Roman Empire. He goes on and says that “the three groups [Paul's Crew - The Romans, Cephas's rabbis and Apollos's philosophers] that would have naturally dominated the young Christian community would have been the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jews.” The basis of his argument stems from the different citizenships for the individuals mentioned in the text: Peter (he uses Cephas because it is his Jewish name), himself and Apollos.

The issue I find with this interpretation is the very fact that Christ is seamlessly mentioned after the other names. This wouldn’t seem to make sense if you subscribe solely to his interpretation. To me, it seems like the division might be over multiple issues. Like most relationships that have division, it begins with one issue of division, but later forms into a relationship that has multiple issues of division.

Because Christ is mentioned, I tend to think that there is more going on here than just ethnic and citizen based division. It seems to be over doctrine, too. Because the church at Corinth clearly had people practicing the spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1:7), it wouldn’t be a stretch to say people believed to have revelation from Jesus, perhaps even such revelation that caused them to think they had apostolic authority, much like Paul himself. The reason for assuming this is the very fact of the Pauline formula throughout this and his letter to the Philippians. It’s clearly one of Christ<Me<You. “Follow me as I follow Christ (1 Corinthians 11).”

So, if you’re a pastor or a teacher, or just somebody who is a student, when reading this text, what do you think is the issue(s) causing such a great schism at Corinth? Is it over citizenship? Is it over doctrine? Is it over baptism? What contemporary issue(s) of division do you think this text could address today?
Peace.

Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2011), 69-70.

Categories: Epistle of 1 Corinthians | Tags: , , , , , | 13 Comments

Pastorum Live.

Posted on January 26, 2012 by Brian LePort

On June 5th and 6th in Chicago, IL, Logos Bible Software is presenting a conference called Pastorum Live. It includes an amazing line-up of presenters including Dan Block, Craig A. Evans, Peter Enns, Craig Keener, Scot McKnight, Grant Osbourne, Nicholas Perrin, John Walton, and many others. Also, it cost $149 to register. That is a deal. If I lived near Chicago I’d go.

To learn more go here.

Categories: Conference, Events | Leave a comment

Is T.D. Jakes a Trinitarian?

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Brian LePort

Persons? Manifestations? Does it matter?

I have friends who are Oneness Pentecostals and many more friends who are Trinitarians. It has been an interesting day since T.D. Jakes appeared at an event called “The Elephant Room” (i.e. MMA for evangelicals) where he was asked about his understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Many of my friends and acquaintances in Oneness Pentecostal circles have understood Jakes to be one of their own. Yet today he told Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, and others the following (according to Trevin Wax’s transcript):

Driscoll: We all would agree that in the nature of God there is mystery. But within that, for you, Bishop Jakes, the issue is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God existing eternally in three persons? What is your understanding now? Which one?

Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you. There are many people within and outside denominations labeled Oneness that would be okay with this. We are taught in society that when we disagree with someone in a movement, we leave. But I still have associations with people in Onenness movements. We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.

For Trinitarians there is the simple confession of “One God-Three Person”, but some may think he fudged things a bit with the caveat that he isn’t “crazy about the word persons though” and that he is OK with “manifestations”. Some Oneness Pentecostals may be a bit upset that he said “persons”, but they appreciate that he struggles with the word “person” just as they do.

What do you think of this statement? Are you a Trinitarian or a Oneness adherent? Does it matter to you either way or do you find this to be a debate over semantics? 

__________

See C. Michael Patton’s “T.D. Jakes Not a Modalist?” as well.

Categories: Modalism, Trinity | 35 Comments

Alcatraz (1.2 and 1.3)

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Brian LePort

 

OK, so who has watched episodes 2 and 3 of Alcatraz? The show has captured my attention thus far. Of course, I find the most perplexing thing to be the timelessness of Dr. Beauregard and Dr. Sangupta/Lucy Banerjee. They are the same age as the “63′s” and they were both on Alcatraz when the prisoners disappeared. Also, as the moderator of AlcatrazHub.com has noted there seems to be something important about the drawing of blood.

Anyone have any theories as to what is happening?

Categories: Television | 5 Comments

Rethinking history with Keith Jenkins (Pt. 1).

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Brian LePort

Recently I finished Keith Jenkins’ book Re-Thinking History (Routledge, 1991). Jenkins is a professor of history at the University of Chichester who is known for his advocating of a postmodern historiography. What characterizes a “postmodern” historiography? Well, oddly enough this statement by the philosopher Voltaire works quite well:  ”There is no history, only fictions of varying degrees of plausibility.”

In other words, when someone writes a “history” they take data available to them (archaeological, botanical, paleontological, papyrological, etc) and they reconstruct a narrative from that data. It could be argued that many events given a cause-and-effect relationship in say a book on Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon are the complete invention of the author. Sure, we find that this or that happened, but do we know that this or that caused Caesar to move toward Rome? How do we know?

Some historians seek to do history as scientists do science. They want testable hypothesis that result in some form of “objective” knowledge. Others say that this is not possible, so the best analogy for the work of a historian is that of an artist taking various materials to paint a picture for his/her audience.

In Jenkins’ book he advocates a very subjective, almost relativistic understanding of history.  I think there is a lot to learn from what he says, though I have my contentions. Over four parts I will interact with Jenkins as an amateur in historiography. I hope to come away a better thinker on how to do historical studies.

History is Histories; there isn’t one “history”.

Jenkins is a Lyotard of historiography in that his first attack is upon the idea that there is one “history” that is all encompassing. Rather, Jenkins argues that there are many, many “histories” (plural) that tell many, many stories from many, many angles. (p. 3) These histories are discourses on various subjects. (p. 5) History and “the past” are not one and the same since the past has happened, but history is a present interpretation of some of the events of the past. (pp. 6-7)

When the historian seeks to bridge the past to the present s/he does so with presuppositions involved. S/he has “epistemological fragility” as Jenkins dubs it. He states, “…no historian can cover and thus re-cover the totality of past events because their ‘content’ is virtually limitless. What he wants the reader to note is that even a modern historian writing on say the election of President Barack Obama must chose to include and exclude details and there are thousands of details that the historian cannot know. “Second, no account can re-cover the past as it was because the past was not an account but events, situations, etc.” (p. 11)

In addition to the chasm of time we have the chasm of experience. Jenkins notes that “…history relies on someone else’s eyes and voice”. (p. 12) Often we aren’t the primary source of our historical work. We rely upon the accounts of others. We receive the events through their subjective lens.

So how do historians make their work secure? Often it comes down to a discussion of methodology. Jenkins thinks this falls short since historians use many different methodologies and often do not agree on how to do the task at hand. (pp. 15-16)

Even if a historian thinks they have a well-developed methodology there are many more factors to consider: the guild and it’s influence, epistemological presuppositions, particular “routines and procedures”, the influence of the work of other historians, the process of writing a history (including the work of editors, limited word counts, sell-ability), and finally, to move to the reader, their own subjective understanding of what you wrote. (pp. 20-24)

What Jenkins accomplishes in his first chapter “What is History?” is the deconstruction of the reader’s confidence in objective historiography. He humbles the reader’s epistemological self-understanding. He challenges the whole guild of historians who feel that their club has discovered the “rules of engagement” for doing good historical work that allows us to say with confidence that this happened, this did not, and this is why this happened.

So you may ask what Jenkins offers once he has torn down the common understanding of historiography. This is his definition of “history”:

History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians) who go about their work in mutually recognizable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically and practically positioned and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of uses and abuses that are logically infinite but which in actuality generally correspond to a range of power bases that exist at any given moment and which structures and distributes the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal spectrum.” (p. 26)

If Jenkins is correct in his understanding of “history” then we should abandon any idea that we can be “objective” in our historical work or that we are recovering the “bare facts”. No, we are reconstructing a narrative from the available data. That said, it seems that Jenkins departs from epistemological arrogrance to epistemological nihilism. Does it have to be “all-or-nothing” or can we reframe the discussion around “degree” of “plausibility” instead? 

 

Categories: Historical Studies, Historiography, Keith Jenkins | 10 Comments

Our histories are unique and diverse.

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Brian LePort

Arizona

In the State of Arizona the law AZ 15-112 was passed to ban ethnic studies. (You can read the details of the law here.) In my estimation it is inherently contradictory if you’ve heard the stories of the teachers from these programs (I had the opportunity to hear Curtis Acosta at Portland State University recently thanks to my wife bringing me along to an event.) They suggest that it is illegal to teach classes that do the following:

1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.

2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.

3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals

Many of us would agree that a public school shouldn’t promote the overthrow of our government. This isn’t happening though. We agree that there shouldn’t be an effort to promote resentment toward another people group. I’ve seen footage of these classes, and it seems to me that this isn’t what these classes teach at all.

The third and fourth points are odd. What the legislators of Arizona ignore is that most of our books on United States history are designed for a particular ethnic group already, namely those of European heritage. Our textbooks are Eurocentric! They depict the history of our nation through the eyes of those who immigrated here from Britain, France, Portugal, Spain and so forth. They do not tell the story of the people who lived here already, unless it is to poo-poo the injustices they suffered as they faced genocide, broken treaties, forced relocation, and as one Native American acquaintance of mine has described it, a “post-apocalyptic world” where their way of living was devastated and they’ve fought to find an identity ever since.

The fourth point falls to the same criticism. If our histories are exclusively Eurocentric then they advocate ethnic solidarity for Caucasians. If we deny that other people came here (or lived here already) from places other than Europe then we are promoting an ethnocentric story.

At that I might add that the second point can’t stand either. I remember hearing the stories of the European explorers and as a young man it was inevitable that the pioneers were ‘good’ and the natives ‘bad’. This is the story we’ve taught our children to justify the establishment of our empire. It is too late in history to rewind what happened, but do we have to lie to our children pretending that our Eurocentric history is baptized? We in this country loved to demonize people like Hitler, but we ignore the actions of generals like G.A. Custer or Presidents like Andrew Jackson.

At the end of the law clause F. states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the instruction of the holocaust, any other instance of genocide, or the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class.

I’m sorry, but this is not possible. The legislators can add this to try to cover themselves from the accusation that they are (in effect) silencing the voices of minorities who want to know how their story fits into the broader narrative of this nation. You can’t prevent Latinos, Native Americas, African Americans, and other minority groups from learning history with their unique histories in mind and not “restrict and prohibit…the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class.” In fact, this law is another form of  ”oppression of a particular group of people based on ethnicity, race, or class.”

The legislators in Arizona needs a good dose of Lyotard! They want to frame their Eurocentric metanarrative as a universal story. It is not. This doesn’t mean it is wrong to study history from a particular perspective, but that is the point….it is a perspective! For some of our citizens there is no connection to the story of French men coming here as trappers or the British coming here for a “new world”. No, for some their people know the story from the other angle. A story where they lived here in their own land only to have it taken from them. This is as much a part of the history of the United States as the stories our textbooks like to tell.

Our history (singular) is impossible without the recognition of our histories (plural). In this nation we have sought to try an experiment where people of different groups come together to share ideals. Some of those ideals is free speech, free inquiry, access to knowledge and information and the right to acknowledge E pluribus unum– not people only but the history of the people.

For my readers with a European heritage I want you to imagine sending your children to a school where the only history class allowed is one where it is taught from the perspective of Native Americans. It would be a history and one could argue a truly “American” history, but it would isolate your children from being allowed to understand how they fit into the big picture. This is what happens when school districts deny people the right to have an approach to history that considers their ethnicity’s perspective.

If this bothers you consider learning more at  saveethnicstudies.org.

Categories: Academics, Ethics, Moral Issues, Pedagogy, Politics, Race | Leave a comment

Is “the greater good” a starting point for thinking about morality?

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Brian LePort

On this blog I have been posting quite a lot on morality, reasoning about morality, and behaving morally. I admit that this is inspired by it being an election year. We Christians in the United States are asked to participate to some extent in the rule of our government by means of voting. We don’t have direct control (and some may argue much control), but we do have some. When we vote we chose people who may have a say in how our nation practices abortion, economics, public sexuality, social services, warfare, and much more. Our efforts to think clearly about tough subjects is virtuous in my estimation because “ignorance is bliss” is a lie.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on making decisions regarding morality from the starting point of “the greater good”. I don’t mean “the greatest good for the most” like utilitarianism argues, per se. Rather, let’s ponder two examples:

(1) If you have a Jewish family in your home in WWII Germany and some Nazi soldiers come to your door asking whether or not you have Jews in your home are you obligated to preserve their lives or tell the truth? Some argue that you should tell the truth because it is your moral responsibility. If the Nazi soldiers kill the Jews this is not something you have done, but something they did. Yet it is quite difficult to make this sequence all about the autonomous behaviors of the various people involved. Many realize in their gut that there is something intuitive about saving human life even if it means lying.

Could we suggest that this isn’t about “doing the lesser evil” (i.e. lying), or pure autonomy (i.e. what the soldiers do is their responsibility alone), but “the greater good”. In other words, could we argue that saving life makes the lie a good deed? If we were to lie for our own sake to gain or defraud others this would make a lie an evil deed, but this lie was to (A) save life and (B) prevent another from taking life–both good things.

(2) If someone enters your home seeking to harm your wife and children and you harm them (even kill them if it seems that murder was their intent) could it be argued that murder for many reasons is evil, but in this case it was good because it saved the life of those for whom you are most responsible? Obviously, you will notice that this scenario shifts a bit because your action is technically the same as the action you sought to prevent (taking human life) and objectively you chose one human’s life over another.

What do you think? In scenarios 1 and 2 does a “greater good” emerge? Does it nullify the deed that would have been evil (a lie, a killing) because it is submerged into the good action? Can we think about morality this way or do you see potential problems? 

__________

Some who have discussed the merits of Christians in the military with me may see this as a softening of my stance, but I maintain that it is unwise for a Christian to give permission to the state to control their decision making to the extent that a soldier must submit to the state. On the other hand, this may allow for Christian participation in law enforcement where you usually are not placed in a position where a superior asks you to kill another human on the mere authority of the superior’s position.


Categories: Ethics, Just War/Pacifism, Moral Issues, Non-violence, War | 21 Comments

We jeer the golden rule while cheering a call to kill our enemies?

Posted on January 23, 2012 by Brian LePort

I don’t know much about organizing a foreign policy. I am not well acquainted with Ron Paul’s position on the subject nor that of Newt Gingrich (though I understand the gist of their views). What I do know as a Christian is that there is something fundamentally wrong with one politician being jeered for suggesting we should do our best to model our foreign policy around the golden rule of doing unto others as we would have them do to us and another politician being cheered for suggesting that the best approach to dealing with our nation’s enemies is to kill them. This is especially concerning when it happens in the same debate in a state that claims to have a large evangelical voting block (though there is no way to know if those cheering loudly are evangelicals or not)! It is even more concerning when former President Andrew Jackson is declared an example of how things should be done.

Whatever nuance we may observe regarding Gingrich’s and Paul’s various proposals regarding this or that matter I think we should be disturbed when people show this much bloodlust.

Categories: Audio/Video, Politics | 38 Comments

Does the personal sexuality of the President matter to you?

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Brian LePort

I remember upsetting my parents when I was younger because I argued that it didn’t matter what President Bill Clinton did behind closed doors with other women as long as he did his job well. Oddly enough, this offended both my Christian mother and atheist father (they shared Republicanism). Obviously, I am not quite the pragmatist of my youth. I think individual morality matters and that even small things like sexual ethics determine the impact of a given person on the things/people they influence.

I didn’t watch the most recent Republican debate (how many do we need?), but I have seen and heard the clip of Newt Gingrich rebuking John King for asking him if he would like to respond to his second wife’s accusation that he requested an open marriage (see video below). It seems odd to me that a person who wants to government to have a say in sexual ethics, especially homosexual marriage, doesn’t think it is appropriate to be asked about his sexual ethics even as he runs for the highest office in the land.

What do you think? Does the President’s sexual ethics matter? Is there a difference between the type of allegations faced by former candidate Herman Cain and the present accusations against Newt Gingrich? Does this compare to the actions of Bill Clinton or do you see a difference since Gingrich hasn’t done anything while holding office as Clinton did?

Categories: Ethics, Homosexuality, Moral Issues, Politics, Sexual Ethics | Tags: | 19 Comments

Elsewhere (01.21.2012)

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Brian LePort

For more frequent updates connect with us on Facebook here.

(12) John Byron mentions the discovery of a fragment from the Book of Romans.

(11) Marc Cortez lists some challenges faced by post-graduates.

(10) Peter Enns was interviewed about his book The Evolution of Adam.

(9) Brian Gronewoller ponder “charitable dialogue in a pluralistic world”.

(8) W. Travis McMaken discusses “evangelical progressivism”.

(7) Halden Doerge critiques John Piper’s god.

(6) Dianna Anderson asks why the incarnation was male.

(5) Luke Todd wrote a doctrinal statement on the person of Christ.

(4) James VanderKam talks about his book The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible.

(3) Kevin DeYoung seeks to identify the 144,000 in the Book of Revelation. Also, he learns from John Wesley.

(2) Luke Wisely ponders the prophetic word of 2 Peter 1.19.

(1) Kevin Brown examines some text critical issues related to 1 Corinthians 13.3.

Categories: Blogosphere, Other Blogs/ Resources | 1 Comment

The Torah by Joel S. Kaminsky and Joel N. Lohr.

Posted on January 20, 2012 by Brian LePort

'The Torah' by Kaminsky and Lohr.

Joel S. Kaminsky and Joel N. Lohr, The Torah: A Beginner’s Guide (Beginner’s Guides), Oxford: One World Publications, 2011.

I am thankful for the free review copy I received of Kaminsky’s and Lohr’s The Torah: A Beginner’s Guide. It is a small volume at about one hundred and sixty three pages of content. It is not a large read and it may function well as a supplement for other course readings or if you don’t want to weigh your students down with secondary sources.

Kaminsky is a professor at Smith College and Lohr at Trinity Western University. Kaminsky is Jewish and Lohr a Christian. These two works together to provide a unique take on the Torah. Actually, this may be one of the greatest benefits of this book in that your students can see what the Torah means to Judaism and Christianity.

The authors attempt to be critical while acknowledging that they have faith-commitments. It isn’t like an evangelical introduction where it lacks critical interaction, but it isn’t detached scholarship either.

The book introduces the Torah, explains it’s religious function, provides students with a glimpse into recent academic studies of Torah, and then explores each book separately before offering concluding reflections.

There are some images, charts, and sidebar articles dispersed throughout the book to break up the reading a bit. If you are seeking a large, in-depth introduction this is not the book. If you want something your students can read in two or three sittings while giving them time to actually read the Torah itself this may be a good choice.

See John Byron’s review here.

Categories: Book Reviews, Books (General), Torah | Leave a comment

Is it immoral to buy these things?

Posted on January 20, 2012 by Brian LePort

I want to highlight a piece of our conversation on the hierarchy of morals from yesterday (see “Is there a hierarchy of morals?”). I asked if we can be responsible for associating with people who do immoral things. In the example yesterday I asked if we are responsible for the death of a Jew killed by a Nazi soldier because we were afraid to lie so the Jew could remain hidden. This is a situation that we are unlikely to face.

BUT are we responsible for the unjust labor practices of companies from which we purchase. If a major shoes company or a major technology company uses child labor in China to create the things we purchase do we participate in their evil by buying their product? Are we guilty in any way?

Let’s take it further: If you are against a war in which your government is involved do you indirectly participate in it by paying taxes knowing the money may be used to fund the war?

If so, how can we avoid participating in corporate evil? If not, why not? 

Categories: Consumption, Ethics | 20 Comments

John Walton’s fifth proposition on Genesis 1.

Posted on January 20, 2012 by Brian LePort

John Walton's 'The Lost World of Genesis One'.

John Walton proposes that “…on day one God created the basis for time; day two the basis for weather; day three the basis for food.” (p. 58) This continues his argument that Genesis 1 is about the creation of function, not material (see proposition four to backtrack). Day one is “the great cycle of time” (p. 55), which is why sun and moon can be created later. It isn’t that God created material light before the sun and moon (Walton notes that “light is never treated as a material object in the ancient Near East, despite our modern physics on p. 53), but the concept to which “light” points = time.

Day two is the great water barrier in the sky. Again, we can’t think of this through our scientific lens. We know the sky is not a solid and the ancients did not. Walton proposes that we remember the main objective is function and for the ancients the sky created “a space in which people can live” and “a mechanism by which precipitation is controlled”. (p. 56) We understand the sky in a similar ways regarding function, though we have a much better understanding of the atmosphere and how weather patterns occur. Nevertheless, again, a “concept” is created. Like time in day one we have weather in day two.

Day three is the concept of harvest. God makes a place where food can grow.

This trifecta of time, weather, and food is paralleled by other ancient near eastern texts like Papyrus Insinger and Enuma Elish (p. 58). Likewise, after the flood God frames his provision in these terms in Genesis 8.22 promising as long as there is time there will be weather and food.

Walton ends the chapter by emphasizing God had to speak through ‘…the framework of the target audience.” God used their understanding of the cosmos to reveal himself as Creator. Overall I give Walton’s basic argument the benefit of a doubt. I agree that the first few days are primarily about concepts though I am not totally convinced the ancient separated material from function to the degree that Walton proposes. Nevertheless, it maintains a better reading of Genesis 1 than many other options.

Categories: Book of Genesis, Book Reviews, Books (General), Creation, John H. Walton | 2 Comments

Is there a hierarchy of morals?

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Brian LePort

Yesterday’s post “Is an action moral only when the motive is pure?” opened the door to discuss whether or not there is a hierarchy of morals. In the comments some began to address the following scenario (surely, one you’ve heard already):

If you lived in Nazi Germany during WWII and you had some Jews hiding in your home you would be obligated to tell the truth to some soldiers who came to your door asking if there were Jews in your home? 

This question causes us to think about our views of morals. Some Christians struggle with this because it is assumed all morality comes from God. If we lie we are immoral, but it seems worse to expose someone who know will be killed unjustly. For some this will not be a problem, but can you explain why?

If you lie this is your action. If the Nazi soldiers kill the Jews it is their action. Are you vindicated or did you participate indirectly?

This is another serious matter to consider. If we say indirect participation in the immoral acts of others is still an immoral act on our part how far can we take this? If Apple or Nike abuse human rights in their factories in China and I purchase their products (this sustaining the company) do I indirectly participate in their immoral actions?

If you lie because you affirm a hierarchy of morality how did you determine that hierarchy? What makes one immoral action worse than another? If there is a hierarchy do we describe it by means of “the lesser evil” admitting we did “evil” (e.g. lying) or “the greater good” meaning that the act of exposing someone to their unjust fate causes the lie to become “good” because we did the greater action of saving a life?

So let’s address these questions:

(1) Do you affirm a hierarchy of morals or do you find all morals to have equal weight?

(2) Based on your answer how you would respond to the above hypothetical situation?

(3) If you affirm a hierarchy how to you determine what is the “lesser evil”? 

Categories: Moral Issues | 11 Comments

Alcatraz (1.1)

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Brian LePort

FOX's Alcatraz

When LOST was popular I was working full-time doing a graveyard shift while going to graduate school at the same time. Needless to say I didn’t have an opportunity to dedicate much time to the last project by J.J. Abrams, et al. By the time I considered watching the end of the story was being talked about everywhere so I lost interest.  I hope Fox’s new show Alcatraz will be my redemption!

I watched episode 1 last night and it caught my attention enough to keep me viewing. (I watched it without my wife though, so you know I will be watching it twice!) The main plot is that when Alcatraz closed its doors it wasn’t because they transferred all the prisoners elsewhere. It is because they disappeared and they are reappearing decades later. You can read the network’s fuller description here.

I don’t image that there is much to “spoil” at this juncture, but if anyone comments and you read the comments be aware we may talk about what happened.

Did anyone else watch it yet? What did you think? What would you guess is happening? Do you think it has staying power?

Categories: Television | Tags: , | 14 Comments

Is an action moral only when the motive is pure?

Posted on January 18, 2012 by Brian LePort

Immanuel Kant

I’ve come to enjoy the program Justice with Harvard University professor Michael Sandel. I recommend you watch it some time! In episode 6b he discusses Immanuel Kant’s assertion that a deed is moral only when the motive is pure. For example, if a shop owner could give a customer the wrong change but doesn’t because he fears being caught (something that would harm the business) this action is not “moral” because his motive was not pure. If he gives correct change because it is the right thing to do then it is moral. Another example would be a man remains faithful to his marriage because he fears if he cheats he would be caught (i.e. the consequence is the motivation) is not the same as the man who remains faithful because he believes it is the right thing to do.

What do you say? Is the morality of an action determined by the action or by the motivation for the action? 

Categories: Immanuel Kant, Moral Issues, Television | 14 Comments

What do Jesus and Paul have to say about sex?

Posted on January 18, 2012 by Brian LePort

This post is part of the blog tour for Daniel Kirk‘s new book Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul? I am covering chapter eight which it titled “Sex in the Plot of God’s Story”. You know, that subject we Christians struggle to address.

Human sexuality isn’t an easy subject for Christians to address. Often we come across as defending some sort of Victorian Era idealism. When the pendulum swings the other way we find pastors writings books as if they are sex therapist (and their lack of qualification show) or they do odd publicity stunts like putting a bed on the roof of their church to they can have a live webcast where they discuss sex with their parishioners.

For those who have been around evangelicalism for any length of time you are used to the cliches that sex before marriage is boring and bad and that the only fun, exciting sex is reserved for marriage. The whole sales pitch is very utilitarian, but it doesn’t explain the “why” of sex. Kirk attempts to do this very thing.

The project of this book is to link Christ and Paul around the proclamation of the Kingdom of God and the new creation that God has enacted upon the world beginning with the resurrection of Christ. It is this message that united Jesus and Paul. Jesus proclaiming God’s Kingdom through his words and deeds. Jesus was vindicated by God as the agent of the Kingdom through the resurrection. Paul reinterprets the story of the Hebrew Scriptures through this apocalyptic event. Paul recognizes that Jesus is the one through whom God has begun the new creation and through whom he is establishing the Kingdom. Paul sees the church as the community that embodies the Kingdom and the new creation. I recommend reading the reviews of the early chapter by Nijay Gupta, Matthew Montonini, Tim Gombis, James McGrath, Jamie Arpin-Ricci, and A.K.M. Adam to get a full bodied understanding of Kirk’s project.

In the biblical narrative it begins with a man and a woman created together in Genesis 1-2. You know the narrative. It provides many principles regarding sexual identity between males and females in a monogamous relationship. Of course, Jesus and Paul both reference this story. Yet many see Jesus and Paul as being somewhat different regarding human sexuality. Kirk notes this when he asks:

- “How do we square the ‘do not judge’ Jesus with the ‘homosexual-condemning’ Paul?”

- “What sort of indicators do we have about what faithful sex looks like within the story of God’s renewal of creation?”

- “For Jesus, how does the coming reign of God lend a distinctive stamp to what sex is and how it should be both faithfully received as a gift and then in turn given to another? And for Paul, what does sex have to do with new creation that comes through the crucified and risen Christ?” (p. 162)

In Jesus’ teaching Kirk finds three “strands of sexual expression woven together”: sex, marriage, and lifelong fidelity (p. 163). When asked about divorce Jesus appealed to the creation narrative to show that man and woman are made for each other, that they are to create a new family unit by coming together sexually, and that it is intended for life. Kirk writes, “In the Christian story, sex takes place within marriage…this is a lifelong partnership. In joining two people sexually, God unites them as one flesh, not to be separated.” (p. 164)

OK, so that is the biblical story. What about our story? Our story informed by Freud, Jung, Madonna, and Glee?! “What does the Christian story look like when played well in this arena?” (p. 164)

Kirk notes that the story of Jesus calls all types of sinners into the community. This includes those with sexual sins. We aren’t to compromise our story, but we must remember that it is not an excuse for exclusion as if sexual sins are categorically worse than other sins. “The church must become the place where the sexually promiscuous experience a committed form of love and embrace that prove to be authentic expressions of acceptance of which serial sexual encounters are only cheap parodies.” (p. 164) Kirk points out that we come to Jesus for forgiveness of sins and this includes sexual sins! (p. 165)

It isn’t possible to offer forgiveness and an alternative vision unless “…we actually believe that the Christian story line of sexual oneness in lifelong marriage is a better plot than the one on offer in the world around us.” (p. 165). Do we believe that this committed, serving, suffering oneness between two people is a better story than using others for pleasure or short-term sexual commitment with many off-ramps for self-preservation. The concern with Christian sexuality is not that it is “better” sex (sorry to burst the bubble of some popular pastors). Christian sexuality is committed sexuality. It is a place where weakness trumps performance. This is rare in our world.

How does this connect with the Kingdom of God? Kirk notes that Jesus said sexuality will not matter in the future Kingdom, therefore, “Sex is an important part of our life on earth, but not the most important thing any us has to say about ourselves.” (p. 167) In other words, sex is not essential to human identity. Our identity transcends our sexual activities. While Paul is the one who is often criticized as being a hard-liner regarding sex Jesus himself is the one who condemned even lusting after a woman who is not one’s wife! Kirk writes, “A critical stage on the path to spiritually healthy sex lies along the way of naming, confessing, and turning from misguided desires. We must be willing to come to God for forgiveness of sexual sins, healing from sexual brokenness, and freedom from sexual enslavement.” (p. 167) As long as we self-justify we will not understand sexuality as Jesus understood it. We will think sex is all about us and our pleasure. We won’t understand sex in it’s greater context.

Kirk proposes that Jesus and Paul understand sexuality in much the same way through the same biblical framework. I agree. Jesus and Paul were both conservative about sexuality (Paul went as far as to advocate celibacy as a superior state, see pp. 168-169). They understood some expressions as holy and some as sinful. Do we as the church align with them?

The money quote from the chapter is this:

As the church has grown more gracious about divorce, more lenient about premarital sex, less concerned about extramarital sex, and more accepting of homosexual sex, it has begun to surrender that part of the good news that proclaims to us the extent of God’s gracious forgiveness. As proclaimers of the message, we are giving up the powerful tool of acknowledging ourselves to be, in the area of sexuality, in ever-present need of God’s grace and mercy. (pp. 167-168)

If we don’t present human sexuality as lifelong covenant between man and woman we refuse the healing grace of God to those who have been damaged by misguided sexual expression.

When Kirk turns his attention toward Paul he emphasizes Paul’s comparison of marriage to the relationship between Christ and his church (and how our marriage relationships can proclaim that relationship to the world around us). (pp. 169-170) For both Paul and Jesus sexual sins are serious. They ruin this imagery. Likewise, they ignore the goodness and usefulness of the human body in the Christian story. Your body is you. You are embodied. What you do with your body matters, especially if you are following Christ. (pp. 171-173)

So where does sex fit into the story told by Jesus and Paul? This is Kirk’s conclusion:

Too often, Christians have believed the competing narrative that speaks of finding greater security, a greater sense of significance, a greater amount of pleasure, or even greater love, through sex outside the lifelong bond. We have not lived as though the Christian story really offers a more compelling vision of reality than the alternatives that confront us. We need to get this story straight because it is tightly connected with the gospel. We are an embodied people. We are a people created to be joined to another body. We are a people meant to be given security through such a lasting physical, sexual union. And we are meant to be given eternal security through lasting union with the physical body of the resurrected Christ. (p. 173)

What does this chapter teach the reader about sex?

First, sex is not internally defined. It is defined by the biblical story. It is given meaning by creation and new creation. It is given direction by a King and his Kingdom.

Second, sex is not a relationship in itself. Sex is given purpose when two people know they are giving their lives to each other until “death do us part”. Sex is not about conquering others. Sex is about giving one’s self to another.

Third, sex is not about “me”. It is about “us”–husband and wife. This allows for vulnerability, error, mistake, embarrassment. It allows for the Genesis imagery of being “naked, but not ashamed”. The world tells us sex is about performance. Sex is like trying to climb to corporate ladder. You must be good at it or you will be shamed. Marriage should be a place of grace where sex between two people is filled with mercy and love.

Fourth, sex can proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom. If Christians live our sexual lives as intended it provides another venue for our counter-claims against the world.

Fifth, sexual sins matter and the church needs to continue proclaiming the kingdom approach to healthy sexuality. We shouldn’t do this with bait-and-switch tactics like “Sex outside marriage is no fun” and “Christians have the really fun sex”. This makes sex as selfish as the world’s story. We must show how a selfish approach to sexuality dehumanizes us.

Finally, the church must show grace to those who fail sexually. While telling our story we must not become condemning of others. It is one thing to say what is right and wrong and to hold each other accountable. It is something different to demean people who fail sexually. Grace is still the guide.

Tomorrow Tony Jones and Mason Slater will wrestle with Kirk’s presentation of how homosexuality fits into this program.

Categories: Book Reviews, Books (General), Ethics, Homosexuality, J.R. Daniel Kirk, Moral Issues, Pauline Studies, Sexual Ethics | 32 Comments

The philosophy of The Help (your feedback is wanted).

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Brian LePort

The Help

I might have the opportunity to discuss the movie The Help with John Perry and Ken Taylor of Philosophy Talk for their upcoming 2012 Dionysus Awards episode where they discuss the most philosophical movies of the last year. I will find out in a week or so if I am chosen. When they asked for submissions I proposed The Help because it presents interesting insights into race relations and how people of different races interpret stories. Even if I don’t get this opportunity I thought it would be something worth discussing here if you’ve seen the film or read the book.

I apologize beforehand regarding these generalizations, but they are the best way I know to compare how different people groups/audiences interpreted the film: 

If you self-identify as being of European descent please tell me and answer these questions:

(1) Did you enjoy the movie?

(2) Did you think it was a fair depiction of race relations in the United States at that time?

(3) Did you identify Skeeter Phelan who combated racism or the others who promoted it?

If you self-identify as being of African descent please tell me and answer these questions:

(1) Did you enjoy the movie?

(2) Did you think it was a fair depiction of race relations in the United States at that time?

(3) How did you feel about the primary character being Skeeter Phelan (the journalist)? Or did you view one of the other characters as the primary character of the story?

If you self-identity as being of some other descent please tell me and answer these questions:

(1) Did you enjoy the movie?

(2) Did you think it was a fair depiction of race relations at that time?

(3) Did you feel connected or disconnected to the story and the characters?

There are no wrong answers here. I know this is very subjective and I’d like to hear your thoughts.

Categories: Art, Film/Movies, Philosophy, Race | 25 Comments

“Love your neighbor” is a complicated command.

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Brian LePort

The Good Samaritan by Hugo Sandoval.

On this blog I have posted several times on subjects related to ethics and morality. It has become quite obvious to me that we Christians do not agree what it means to be a Christian in relation to abortion, capital punishment, economics, social services, war, and many other subjects. One person mentioned to me that we need to frame these discussions in terms of “love your neighbor” as Jesus taught and I agree, but that doesn’t make it any easier.

Yes, Jesus’ point was made clearly when he told the parable of the good Samaritan. Sadly, the Evangelist didn’t give us more of Jesus’ examples. When a young woman wants to abort her child we have two neighbors at stake. When two people aim to kill each other during a war we have two neighbors at stake. When one man feels the state is taking his hard earned money while another thinks he is oppressed by the state so that it is impossible for him to thrive we have two neighbors at stake. Often the vision of our various neighbors are polar opposites.

What does it mean to love my neighbor who enrolls in the military when I think the state is waging unjust wars? What does it mean to love my neighbor who says he has been wrongly convicted as he awaits the death penalty? What does it mean to love my neighbor who wants an abortion? What does it mean to love my neighbor who is a Republican, a Democrat, part of the Tea Party, or part of the Occupy Movement? What does it mean to love my neighbor who lives and dies by Capitalism, or Socialism, or Marxism, or Communism? What about my neighbor who is racist and displays that racism? What about my neighbor who shames Christianity with bigoted words? What does the “love” entail?

Categories: Ethics | 11 Comments

If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today for whom would he vote?

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Brian LePort

If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive in 2012 to cast a vote for one of our candidates whom do you think he’d chose? Why?

Categories: Martin Luther King Jr., Politics | 3 Comments

The moral quandaries of the abortion debate.

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Brian LePort

Ultrasound from the second trimester.

In a recent discussion on this blog (see “Is your ‘pro-life’ ethic internally consistent?”) some people were a bit upset that I would compare abortion to killing during war or the capital punishment of a criminal. I found this a bit odd since part of the “pro-life” argument is the full personhood of the unborn. In other words, I asked how these three were different or similar based on the notion that it is possible to discuss the unborn as having rights similar to those who have been born.

Someone asked whether or not abortion in the United States is the same thing as the Holocaust of World War II. In hasty response I proposed that it isn’t, though I confess I didn’t spend much time reasoning as to why. This post will be an effort to examine my own thinking on the matter and I welcome dialogue. I know this is a touchy subject, but I think we can navigate it.

First,  I don’t know if it is intuition or cultural conditioning, but when I imagine myself observing a Nazi soldier grabbing a Jewish man in order to drag him toward assassination it seems quite different that watching a teenage girl step into an abortion clinic. Obviously, this hasn’t been the case for everyone as we’ve seen exemplified by those who commit terrorist style acts toward such clinics. Nevertheless, most anti-abortion advocates are not willing to violently protest either the woman having the abortion (more understandable since to harm her would be to harm the unborn child) or the people performing the abortion.

Why is this? Is it as evil to abort a child as it is for a Nazi soldier to kill a Jew or a gypsie? If so, why is our instinct to think we’d do something about saving the Jew, but not the child?

Second, I wonder aloud if we talk of doing what we find morally responsible in situations where we are not confronted with the actual event. In other words, we may say we’d fight the Nazi to save the Jew, but many people did live as by-standers out of their own self-preservation. So it may be that the difference is merely that one is hypothetical (I’d save the Jewish man) while the other is actual (I could save an unborn child).

Third, I wrestle with how I’d handle being told by my teenage daughter (let’s say sixteen so she is a bit older, but under my authority) that she was pregnant and that she intended to have an abortion in comparison with if the same daughter had the child and then called me on the phone when the child was six months old to tell me she planned on killing it. My instinct tells me there is a difference, but it could be that I am culturally conditioned. It could be that my sense of morality is shaped by crime-and-punishment. I know that she is protected under the law in case of abortion, but six months outside the womb changes everything legally. Is there an actual difference or merely a difference of consequence that informs my emotions?

Fourth, there is a very interesting “Philosophy Experiment” called “Whose Body Is It Anyway?” that proposes you wake up one day attached to another person’s body. Their life depends on using you as a source for nine months. If you refuse, they die. It is your body, do you have the right to deny sustaining life even if this person was attached to you without permission? Of course, there are obvious “how did we get here” differences between this scenario and pregnancy, but it is something we must consider. One of the “pro-choice” arguments says that it is a woman’s body and her right to choose whether she uses it to sustain another life. What are we to make of the “sustainer” argument (i.e. the other person doesn’t have life on their own without being granted support from another). For those who advocate abortion rights is the key factor the use of the body? Could a mother of a six month old child stop feeding it because she doesn’t feel the obligation to “sustain” the child (I speak of morality, not law)?

Fifth, personhood is a difficult thing to understand. Many “conservatives” say at conception while many “liberals” say at birth. Those who defend the life of the unborn note that in the womb you see hands, feet, eyes, a heartbeat, and all the signs of humanity though not fully developed (which raises the question of how developed must a human be to be a human?) and this is reason enough to enact laws that precaution to protect as early as possible. Those who defend abortion rights note that arguments for “potentiality” can go quite a ways back if one isn’t careful. Is using contraceptives “murder” since it hinders potential life (as Roman Catholics teach)? What about the first clump of cells?

Others say that life begins at that first breath outside the womb (some Christians quote God breathing into Adam to give him personhood). This seems to be what out laws support now, but it appears quite contradictory when we charge someone with murder who harms a mother causing the death of the unborn or when we will do all that we can to save a child born of premature birth suggesting that we realize some real personhood even if the baby hasn’t had the opportunity to fully develop.

Finally, let’s imagine that Roe v. Wade was reversed and abortion was criminalized. What happens? Do women cease to abort their babies? If our real concern is life then we must not be satisfied with enacting legislation that criminalizes an act. We must ask how we could preserve life. Do we know what to do if some reject the law and continue with illegal abortions? What is our aim?

These are the questions running through my mind on this matter. What are your thoughts?

Categories: Abortion, Moral Issues | 10 Comments

Why are you voting for Ron Paul?

Posted on January 15, 2012 by Brian LePort

Why would Ron Paul make a good President?

Since some people have already left comments telling me why Ron Paul is their choice for President of the Unites States I think I will give at least one post for those who are Ron Paul supporters to explain why.

I want to know what parts of his platform pursued you and if there is any thing about him that causes you to have reservations. Is he your candidate because he reflects your values or do you see him as the strongest in a weak field?

Also, what does one make of these newsletters printed under his name that contain racist and homophobic language? Should we believe he didn’t check the content before release or that he used to hold these positions but he has changed? Why should we trust a politician to be telling the truth about this matter?

Anyways, enough of my questions! Why are you voting for Ron Paul?

Categories: Politics | 14 Comments

Elsewhere (01.14.2012)

Posted on January 14, 2012 by Brian LePort

For more frequent updates connect with us on Facebook here.

(14) Tim Henderson says arguments for the resurrection don’t accomplish much.

(13) Brian Gronewoller distinguishes between academic and functional epistemology.

(12) Tim Kimberely profiles Augustine. Marc Cortez shares some advice Augustine gives to preachers.

(11) Kurt Willems speaks on glossolalia. Derek Ouellette shares some thoughts on the same subject.

(10) Tim Gombis asks why forgiveness is so difficult.

(9) Peter Enns explains the “real” problem evangelicals have with evolution.

(8) Tony Cruz explores the “Genesis of marriage”.

(7) Leslie Keeney asks if a narrative can be authoritative.

(6) Rachel Held Evans writes on the story of Esther and Vashti.

(5) Rodney Thomas reads the Book of Acts through a Trinitarian lens.

(4) Bill Mounce exegetes Romans 10.9.

(3) Jeremy Michael Rios explores Matthew 24, Genesis 1, and the eternal reign of Christ.

(2) Michael Barber explores the identity of the magi.

(1) Jason Gardner wonders from where Cain’s wife came.

Categories: Blogosphere, Other Blogs/ Resources | 2 Comments

Is your “pro-life” ethic internally consistent?

Posted on January 13, 2012 by Brian LePort

...or is it?

Every election season one of the subjects discussed most frequently by evangelicals is abortion. Most evangelicals (and Roman Catholics) stand against the legalization of abortion. Yet this isn’t the only “pro-life” issue worth considering. There are at least two other things impacted by whom one votes into various political positions: (1) warfare and (2) capital punishment.

Today’s question is simple: “Is your ‘pro-life’ ethic internally consistent?” In other words, do you know why you are against abortion, but OK with capital punishment and war or against war and capital punishment, but OK with abortion? Please explain your thought process on this important matter!

Of course, other matters could be considered “pro-life” like various environmental policies that may impact the lifespan and quality of life for people in particular regions. If you want to mention your views on such matters you’re welcome to do so in the comments section.

Categories: Abortion, Capital Punishment, Just War/Pacifism, Moral Issues, War | 88 Comments

τῷ τὴν τιμὴν τὴν τιμήν: Dr. Carole Spencer

Posted on January 13, 2012 by JohnDave Medina

Carole Spencer was still part of the regular faculty when I took Spirituality and the Writings of the Mystics. This was one of the most enjoyable classes I had, even though it was presented in a hybrid format, a format from which I tend to shy away. Carole’s knowledge of the mystics were astounding, and the class, as a whole, challenged me in the way I relate to God. It was upon reading the mystics that I learned that there is a depth and a profundity to God that goes completely beyond human expression. The believer who becomes truly lost in and united with God is transformed into one whose life is characterized by purity, joy, and holiness.

Although much of the mystical writings have been by Catholics, Carole also pointed out Protestant mystical writers, like George Fox. Even C. S. Lewis has writings that could be considered mystical. Although mysticism is often characterized by undefinable experiences, there are what I would call mystical characteristics, and can see these in many genuine believers.

Many thanks, Carole, for inspiring me to toward unity with the holy God and for some guidance on getting there.

Categories: Academics, Seminary | Leave a comment

Christianity against religion?

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Brian LePort

"Imagine...no religion too."

Sometimes I am surprised at how antagonistic some Christians are toward religion. Recently a video of a spoken word artist placing Jesus over against religion has gone viral. Many Christians seem to enjoy it though they don’t realize how paradoxical this must seem to outsiders (read my concerns in “Remember, Jesus practiced religion too!”). Contrary to their self-evaluation they are religious people. If you tell an atheist or agnostic that as a Christian you don’t have a religion, but a “relationship with God”, you come across as mincing words or as someone who lives in a state of denial.

Whether or not you think Christianity is a superior religion to other religions for the very basic reason that Christianity focuses on Jesus Christ (an assertion with which I would agree) it is contradictory for a Christian to oppose religion vis-à-vis religion. Christians are religious. We pray, meditate, sing songs, play music, participate in sacraments like baptism and Eucharist, give alms and offerings, read from our Scripture, gather together as a community often on a particular day of the week, observe holy days, proselytize, and so forth and so on. We are not areligious. Our “relationship” with Jesus is not free of religious practice like one’s relationship with their parent, sibling, or spouse.

I understand what Christians are saying when they place Jesus against religion, but I think we need to abandon this project because it is not the best way of saying it.

Let me push this a bit further: Even if we Christians think Hinduism or Islam insufficient because it doesn’t include Jesus Christ the Son of God who brings people to God the Father do we prefer a world without religion?

Some people will solicit religion to support their evil deeds (e.g. al-Qaeda). Others have used their atheism to do the same (think of some forms of communism). People are good at justifying their actions. We can use anything to support our goals and aims. So religion itself is not the root of evil. On the contrary, for many, religion gives them a sense of moral obligation. It causes them to seek something higher than themselves. I know it can cause people to stop thinking, but often it forces people to think deeply.

In other words, “religion” is something of a blank slate as regards its impact on the world around us.

If I were not a Christian I’d probably be agnostic. As a teenager I claimed to be a Deist because I was pretty sure some god or gods existed, but I thought this god or these gods were impersonal and disinterested in our species. I am not someone who wants to be religious for the sake of being religions. In fact, if I weren’t a Christian I’d find much freedom in agnosticism since I wouldn’t feel obligation to much anything beyond my own self interest. Yes, without Christianity I’d be quite the jerk. (If you don’t believe me go introduce yourself to some LePorts from my family line. You’ll see what I mean.)

Even at that, I think religion forces many people to think about morality, right and wrong, justice, and their treatment others. Much like political affiliation or nationalism it can be used for evil, but often it is used for good, at least more good than individualism or anarchy!

Surely, one can act morally without religious beliefs (though the grounds for such actions are difficult to sustain at times), but that is beside the point. I wonder if Christians who speak against religion, knowing very well that the whole world is not going to convert to Christianity tomorrow, actually believe that it would be a better world if the only two camps were Christians and atheist/agnostics/Deists? When Anthony Flew went from being an atheist to a theist many Christians fell out of their chair with excitement because an intelligent person presumed that there was a god rather than no god. Many of these same Christians will mindlessly chant that religion is stupid, misguided, or even evil. Why?

I am a Christian because  my religion includes Jesus Christ. I am religious and yes, I think Christianity is the best religion in the world because of the person at the center. In fact, I think Jesus is the only Savior of humanity. While God may use other religions to bring people to him I confess that through Jesus alone comes salvation (though I am an inclusivist so I am open to Christ’s work being applied to those who do not know him). Like the Athenians who met the Apostle Paul I think many religious people are good, moral, and in a better place in the world because of their religion than if they abandoned belief altogether. This doesn’t mean I think we should settle for letting religious people go their merry way without proclaiming Christ crucified and risen, but concepts like “god”, “worship”, “morality”, and the like are not negatives when we preach the Gospel. In fact, they may be areas of shared interest that allow Jesus to be better understood (though, admittedly, they can prevent someone from being open to Christ).

I say all that to say this: I’d rather live in a world with religious people than a world of atheism and nihilism (yes, yes, I know, not all atheist are bad, immoral, and purposeless). While I would that every man and woman knew Jesus Christ by the Spirit I don’t expect this to happen tomorrow. Contrary to John Lennon I don’t want to imagine a world were there is no religion. I don’t think it would be a world of peace. I think it would be something much worse.

Categories: Religions | 25 Comments

Aramaic resources online.

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Brian LePort

I’ve begun studying Aramaic this year and I am wondering if anyone has any online sources they’d like to recommend. I know of Michael Halcomb’s “Getting Aramaic”. Is there anything else out there that you’d recommend?

Categories: Aramaic | 4 Comments

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Adventure Journal by Contexture International.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,620 other followers