Bearing Sour Fruit

On 27 March I wrote at the end of a post:

Don't point to a piece of empirical evidence and say: "look here, my faith in God is proven." Rather, demonstrate to me the validity and trustworthiness of your faith by showing me the fruit that it bears. Show me truth, love and justice in your actions.

There are any number of ways that a Christian can act in the name of God. Sometimes the fruit of those words and actions isn't sweet at all. Sometimes its quite sour and distasteful. We should ask: In God's name, what are you saying/doing? Below is an instance in which a Christian leader is bearing some sour and distasteful fruit.

From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:

ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Pat seems to be putting on display his nationalistic zealotry and weaving through it, his power and position as a key Christian leader. The fruit is ugly and dangerous, if you ask me.

Resemblance

"Who and what is next?"

Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force responded to the President's support of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage:

"If he endorses amendments such as this, which blatantly discriminates against a class of people, you would then have to wonder who and what is next."

Ms. Sklar's statement brings to mind another time in history. One of Hitler's first acts after taking office on January 30, 1933 was to ban homosexual organizations. From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

" Soon after taking office on January 30, 1933, Hitler banned all homosexual and lesbian organizations. Brownshirted storm troopers raided the institutions and gathering places of homosexuals."

"On May 6,1933, Nazis ransacked the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin; four days later as part of large public burnings of books viewed as "un-German," thousands of books plundered from the Institute's library were thrown into a huge bonfire." more

The photo below shows the burning of homosexual books in Berlin.

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." Heinrich Heine, nineteenth century German author.

"On Sunday evening, members of the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Penn Township sing songs as they burn books, videos and CDs that they have judged offensive to their God."

Published in the Butler Eagle, March 26, 2001. Courtesy of the Butler Eagle

From "Playing with Fire" by James Carroll of the Boston Globe (3/9/04):

God as Hypothesis

Many Christians whether they are aware of it or not, view the Bible and their faith through the lens of referential epistemology (or also known as a correspondence theory of truth).

What does all that gibberish mean?

It means that many proclaim the Words of the Bible to accurately fit or correspond to the world out there. As a result of this epistemological stance, we see books like Josh McDowell's mega-popular: Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In this book, McDowell lays out empirical evidence that he argues attests to the validity of the Christian faith. Or said differently, McDowell tests the Words of the Bible against the historical record in an attempt to justify the Christian faith to doubters. So, for instance, on page 68, he uses archaeological evidence to confirm the trustworthiness of Scripture.

So what's wrong with this?

One big problem is that people are inadvertently using a modern epistemological theory to support or prove their faith in the Bible. Historically, the correspondence theory of truth is a modern invention of philosophers of science. It is an epistemology that is only a few hundred years old, while the Bible is much, much older.

But really why is this problematic?

Well, because folks like McDowell are implicitly setting modern scientific practice (testing against empirical evidence the accuracy of a word) as the standard the Bible and its Words must pass before its valid. McDowell and his likes seem to want to make God into a hypothesis that can be tested against the evidence. The more evidence for God the more valid and trustworthy the Christian faith.

This way of talking about faith also has the effect of getting Christians caught up in battles with other empiricists. Thus, look at the recent books written by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris and others that try to refute Christian faith on empirical grounds. Or, they try to reduce Christian faith or religion more generally, to an empirical/material cause (e.g. a genetic or neuron-chemical brain function). In response, Christian apologists do double time in an effort to pick apart these arguments and offer counter evidence that attests to the validity of their faith.

But is faith in God really about empirics? I don't think so, or at least its not necessary.

To quote John D. Caputo on this: "Religious truth is not the truth of propositions, the sort of truth that comes from getting our cognitive ducks in order, from getting our cognitive contents squared up with what is out there in the world, so that if we say 'S is p' that means that we have picked out an Sp out there that looks just like our proposition."

Religious truth is of a different order. Saying that "God is love," for instance, is not about finding and testing "God" and "love" against the empirical record.

To continue with Caputo: "So if we say 'God is love,' that means that we are expected to get off our haunches and do something, make the truth happen, amidst our sisters and our brothers....in spirit and in truth, which means in deed, for the name of God is the name of a deed."

So, in short, we need to make the break and realize that faith in God is not dependent on some empirical piece of evidence and no amount of evidence is going to prove God or the Christian faith to be valid or trustworthy. McDowell may be doing a popular apologetic exercise that aims at convincing a modern-minded crowd of doubters--but he is doing damage too, as he risks reducing God to a rationally explicable and empirically testable phenomena. I would urge that the validity and trustworthiness of Christians and their faith is a matter to be made, a deed to be done and demonstrated to doubters. Don't point to a piece of empirical evidence and say: "look here, my faith in God is proven." Rather, demonstrate to me the validity and trustworthiness of your faith by showing me the fruit that it bears. Show me truth, love and justice in your actions.

"War on Terrorism" and the Culture of Fear

Over the weekend, a Cold Warrior, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote a surprisingly good op-ed piece in the Washington Post.

He argues that the "war on terrorism" mantra is cultivating a culture of fear in America.

I would agree. Check it out.

JesUSAves

What does this image do? It yokes Jesus, USA, and Saves into a whole. The image ties the secular (USA and corporate produces) together with the sacred. It seems to produce a historically salient nationalistic/patriotic fantasy that the USA is an exceptional state, a state touched by the hand of God and infused by manifest destiny.

Or maybe not? What do you think?

"Homosexuality": The Creative Work of Evangelicals (Part 2)

In part one, I tried to demonstrate that the issue of 'homosexuality' is not a point of discussion in the Bible. It is a contemporary issue tied to the social and political conditions in the United States, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s. Moving beyond this argument is the point of this second part.

Instead of arguing that those evangelicals that say 'homosexual practice' is mentioned in the Bible are wrong, I'll take a different tact. When someone says something to the effect: "the Bible says clearly that homosexuality is a sin." The questions that guide this analysis is: What are they doing? And, How are they doing it?

My argument is that many evangelicals continually weave the contemporary word 'homosexuality' and its attendant meanings back onto the Biblical text through the process of story telling. They take a topic that emerged enforce during the 1980s and project it back into history. The effect of this re-reading is to tie the Bible to the present political issue of 'homosexuality' in a way that justifies the speaker's condemnation on Biblical grounds.

As Albert Mohler demonstrates, the story telling happens smoothly. Watch as he creatively weaves 'homosexuality' to the Bible.

Let's get this straight -- God's condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God's Word. The Bible could not be more clear -- all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator's rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God's express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God's verdict.

This creative weaving powerfully enables Mohler to define 'homosexuality' as 'sin' and 'rebellion against God's express will.' It situates Mohler as the knower of this fact (while not explaining how he knows) and it implies that Mohler is in God's good graces compared to the sinful 'homosexual.' But more importantly, Mohler is acting to define the limits of what constitutes the evangelical viewpoint on the contemporary issue of 'homosexuality.' 'Homosexuality' is beyond the pale and the Bible is used to justify this perspective on the matter.

Usually this creative reading of 'homosexual' is sewn into three places in the Bible:

Leviticus 18:22 which reads "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 which reads "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 which reads "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

From these versus, it is inferred that the Bible was referring to 'homosexuality.' The explanation for this inferential leap from the empirical evidence to 'homosexuality' is conveinently left out of the discussion. The differences in the contexts in which the Bible was written and our contemporary contexts is absent from the discussion. Instead, a condemning story is told with certainty--'the Bible says clearly that homosexuality is a sin.'

The Bible can be read differently. This is not the only way that these verses can be read. For instance, take Blogging the Bible: What's Really in the Good Book. David Plotz is not an evangelical. He characterizes chapter 20 of Leviticus in these words:

Chapter 20
This is the Law and Order: SVU chapter, where the Lord specifies punishment for sex crimes. The most popular sentence: "They shall be put to death." Execution is the price for sex between: adulterer and adulteress; man and stepmother; man and daughter-in-law; man and man; man and beast; woman and beast. A threesome of man, woman, and her mother is singled out as especially heinous: The punishment is not just death but getting burned to death. God allows a few tender mercies: Marrying a sister is punished only by excommunication. Sex with a menstruating woman—that rates only banishment. And sex with an aunt or sister-in-law merely guarantees the culprits will die childless.

Nowhere does Plotz use the word 'homosexual' to frame any of the discussion of Leviticus. He is reading the same texts (generically, the Bible) as everyone else, yet interpreting it differently than many evangelicals. Plotz's reading stays closer to the empirical text by using 'man and man' language. He does not sew into the Bible text the word 'homosexual' and thus avoids the overt politicization that comes with its use.

Thus, evangelicals are not wrong; or at least that is not my argument.

I'm just saying that to "keep thinking" about this issue seems to be another way of saying: Let's keep talking about and acting out this storyline that ties 'homosexuality' to the Bible. Let's bring this worldview to life. Let's creat it and sustain it.

"Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline (Part 1)

It is commonplace to hear that "the Bible says clearly that homosexual practice is a sin" or some similar derivation of that.

Yet a quick peek into any of the popular translations of the Bible today reveals that 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual practice' are not empirically in the texts themselves. There is no mention of these 'sins,' as is commonly argued.

More to the point, 'homosexual' has a rather modern history.

homosexual (adj.)

1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see same) + Latin-based sexual (see sex).

" 'Homosexual' is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it." [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897]

The noun is first recorded 1912 in Eng., 1907 in French. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929. The alternative homophile (1960) was coined in ref. to the homosexual regarded as a person of a particular social group, rather than a sexual abnormality. Homo-erotic first recorded 1916; homophobia is from 1969.

Historically speaking, then, it would have been impossible for the word 'homosexual' to appear during the time of the Bible's writing, since it was first produced in a late nineteenth century book. This is significant because it directly challenges the claim that the "Bible says clearly" anything at all about 'homosexuality.'

When did 'homosexuality' emerge as a problem for evangelical Christians?

To shed some empirical light on this question, I turned to Google's new "News Archive" search feature. Here I searched for this combination of words: "homosexual + evangelical." For all the available years, the results look like this:

Pre-1950 = 4
1950-1959 = 29
1990-1992 = 455
1993-1995 = 521
1997-2002 = 1300
2003-2006 = 2190

Before 1959, just over thirty news articles appeared. The frequency of these word pairs is fairly limited. Between 1960 and 1990, however, things started to come together.

What was going on during this time?

Given this officially recognized designation as a class of people, 'homosexuals,' started speaking out in the name of 'Gay rights' and 'equality' for 'homosexuals.' Also, the political, moral, economic, and ethical issue of AIDS emerged as a problem in the United States.

Particularly during the late 1970s and 1980s, networks of people identifying themselves as 'evangelicals' and 'fundamentalists' were politically energized around various politico-religious leaders and issues. To quote Susan Friend Harding, the 1980s saw a "born-again Christian cultural diaspora" that "sent inerrant Bible-believers into the vast professional middle-class reaches of America."

The diffusion of information networks like the Internet and cable network TV lowered the cost of mass communicating to large national and transnational audiences. Of particular significance, was the rise of televangelism and the birth of an industry of mass marketed Christian products, services and merchandise.

Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States and was heroisized by many right leaning Americans as bringing down the Iron Curtain and pushing the Godless Soviet Union to collapse.

Other conditions undoubtedly were involved in making the expansion possible. The point is that the 1980s saw the conditions made ripe for an explosion of talk about 'homosexuals' and 'evangelicals' in the news. Thus, the early 1990s saw a precipitous rise in the number of articles.

The point of all this is to say that the politicization of the issue of 'homosexuality' is rather new. Being against 'homosexuality' is not a Biblical axiom. The Bible says nothing about 'homosexuality.' It is a contemporary political topic that self identified evangelicals talk about. In short, my argument is that 'homosexuality' is a contemporary storyline that emerged after WWII and crystallized as an issue for evangelicals during the late 1970s and 1980s.

Yep, Sex is on the Evangelical Mind

A few days ago I made a post about how many evanglicals have sex on the mind. Then today I ran across the Baptist Press News article that only served to fortify my view.

In Kentucky, over 700 students gathered at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to talk about God and Sex.

As the Dean of the School of Theology, Russel D. Moore said: “Right now in this generation there are a couple of white hot issues that are the key touchstones of apologetic interest, and sex is right there at the center of it"

Yes, like I've been saying...or better yet, in the words of the BPN article: "sex is not a secondary issue."

Sex is on everybody's mind it seems.

God, Science and Making Sense of a Complex World: An Illustrative Example

The short AP article was titled: "Woman in Vegetative State Awakes, Slips." It reads:

A woman who went into a vegetative state in November of 2000 awoke this week for three days, spoke with her family and a local television station before slipping back on Wednesday. "I'm fine," Christa Lilly told her mother on Sunday — her first words in eight months. She has awakened four other times for briefer periods.

"I think it's wonderful. It makes me so happy," Lilly told television station KKTV-TV. She also got to see youngest daughter, Chelcey, now 12 years old, and three grandchildren.

Her neurologist, Dr. Randall Bjork, said he couldn't explain how or why she awoke.

"I'm just not able to explain this on the basis of what we know about persistent vegetative states," he said.

A vegatative state is much like a coma except her eyes remain open.

"The good Lord let me know she's alright, he brings her back to visit every so often and I'm thankful for that," said Minnie Smith, her mother and caregiver after Christa slipped back into the vegetative state.

A couple of points are worth talking about in this article. They highlight limitations and opportunities.

One: the scientist/doctor lacked the conceptual tools to explain the phenomena. He could not account for why she was waking up and then slipping back into a vegetative state. The phenomena is tapping the edge of scientific knowledge, its limit.

Just on the other side of the inexplicable another kind of answer waits, which brings me to the second point. As the mother said: the 'good Lord let me know she's alright.' While the scientist cannot explain the situation, the mother can. Her conceptual toolbox offers opportunities where the scientist is left empty handed. She makes sense of this baffling experience by pointing to God. God offers a comforting knowledge that isn't a hypothesis to be tested, but a faith to be cherished and felt.

Science and faith are not at war--as many theists and atheists shout and wring their hands. They complement one another. But they cannot be reduced to one another--creationism is faith posing as science. They are similar in some respects, and yet ultimately different. They serve different purposes and offer different ways of making sense of the complex world in which we live.

Sex on the Mind--Evangelicals in America

No, it's not enough to follow Jesus of Nazareth. It is not enough to have a burning passion for the poor. It's not enough to strive toward some semblance of social justice. We have to have sex on the mind.

Let me illustrate.

According to the Baptist News Press, five churches in North Carolina are at odds with the Baptist State Convention over the issue of homosexuality. Last fall, the Convention voted by nearly a three-fourths margin to "change the convention's articles of incorporation regarding membership."

On what issue, you might guess, are the Convention's articles to be changed and made more exclusionary? Sex!

The original BSCNC membership article stated, “A cooperating church shall be one that financially supports any program, institution, or agency of the Convention, and which is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work.”

The addition to the article states, “Among churches not in friendly cooperation with the Convention are churches which knowingly act to affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless homosexual behavior. The Board of Directors shall apply this provision. A church has a right to appeal any adverse action taken by the Board of Directors.”

The deacons at St. Johns, one of the five offending churches, noted that

as a “community of the new creation,” we are “open to all and closed to none. This includes a welcome to gay and lesbian persons who wish to follow Christ with us here.”

“We have not changed our mission,” St. John’s said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the [Baptist State Convention] has changed its mission and has chosen to narrow its membership to exclude churches and institutions that do not adhere to its exclusive and discriminatory view of who is welcome in its fellowship.”

Both the NC State Convention and St. John's church have sex on the mind. But more than being simply on the mind, the State Convention and the church govern themselves around the issue of sex--sex is a topic that justifies exclusion and inclusion into this or that community. How we think about and act toward sex helps define who "we" are.

A similar article appeared in the NY Times this morning. James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins and other conservative Christian leaders wrote a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals. Their aim was to put pressure on Rev. RichardCizik, the DC policy director.

Why, you might ask?

“We have observed,” the letter says, “that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time.”

Those issues, the signers say, are a need to campaign against abortion and same-sex marriage and to promote “the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”

The NC Baptist Convention, St. Johns and the various evangelical leaders that signed the letter seem to have sex on the mind and a burning passion for the politics of sexuality and purity.

With sex on the mind, where does that leave the poor? Or the environment? Are they secondary? Tertiary? Are their care not an issue of morality?

Make some mental space for issues other than sex.

You Can't Treat "Heroes" Like Dirt

A series of articles published in the Washington Post on the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was a trigger. They effectively circulated these stories across mass media outlets and got people moving.

But the conditions were there at Walter Reed and around the country before the articles came out. The complaints from wounded soldiers and their families were there too. And at Walter Reed, politicians visit frequently. They come to shake hands and enjoy photo opportunities with these fallen heroes.

I want to emphasize "hero." Since 9/11, soldiers and first responders have become heroes. The other day, I heard a talking head refer to soldiers as "professional heroes." By referring to soldiers and first responders as "heroes," certain things can and cannot be done.

You can't treat a "hero" like dirt. Or, if you do, then your legitimacy comes under scrutiny. Hence, watch the politicians jump through their asses in Washington, DC as they deal with the scandal at Walter Reed.

The day the story broke in the Washington Post, the White House was fairly mute about the whole situation. On Alternet, there is a great 10 minute video of Tony Snow (the White House spokesperson) feebly fending off reporters questions about the brewing scandal. The import of the situation had not quite hit them yet.

Now you have the Vice President and the President talking up their resolve to fix the problems at Walter Reed. Congressional Republicans and Democrats are holding hearings. Generals are being fired.

You can't call someone a "hero" and treat them like dirt.

This wasn't a problem after the Vietnam War. Soldiers weren't called "heroes." Often, it seems, they were more likely called "baby killers." You can treat a "baby killer" like dirt--it is much more acceptable practice. Witness the homeless men in Washington DC that are Vietnam veterans or the vets that suffered from Agent Orange and failed to receive adequate treatment and support from the military.

But now, even Vietnam vets are basking in the glow of being a former "hero." They are "heroes" similar to WWII era vets and Gulf War vets. They are all "heroes," warriors and first responders alike.

And you can't treat "heroes" like dirt.

Complaints about VA care have been there for a long time. But it took the post-9/11 "hero" narrative combined with the pictures and stories in the Washington Post articles to create the possibility for a political explosion. And explode it has. In the expanding face of this criticism, watch all the politicians and high ranking officials jump to retain some semblance of legitimacy.