Faith in Context

The Thinking Primate

by Loren Seibold

It’s the year of analyzing our own consciousness, and the megahit Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari rules the field. (Recent others in a similar vein: Leonard Mlodinow’s The Upright Thinkers, Edward O. Wilson’s The Meaning of Human Existence, and The Human Age by Diane Ackerman.)

Naturally, Harari asserts that somewhere along the evolutionary line a bipedal ape developed an astonishing level of consciousness of a sort that was quite different from that of its similarly large-brained relatives. Sapiens is about how we became the thinking primate, and what that led to.

The religious people who reject the initial premise might miss out on the what is a marvelous insight from a secular historian and anthropologist: that the key to humanness is faith, i.e., the ability to believe in things that aren't physically there. These abstract notions are impossible for our nearest primate relations. Writes Harari:

"It's relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don't really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven."

This cognitive revolution, says Harari, sets the stage for everything that comes afterwards: the agricultural revolution, human cooperation in government, religion and economics, and our advancement into science and discovery. All the great achievements of humanity—tribe, trade, money, corporations, religion, government, scientific theories, mathematics, literature, music and art, rights and laws, contracts, even relationships—are predicated on that ability to create and trust abstractions, an ability that Harari sees manifested in (and possibly first stimulated by) religious faith. 

"[F]iction has enabled us not merely to imagine things, but to do so collectively. Such myths give Sapiens the unprecedented ability to cooperate flexibly in large numbers. Ants and bees can also work together in huge numbers, but they do so in a very rigid manner and only with close relatives. Wolves and chimpanzees cooperate far more flexibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers of other individuals that they know intimately. Sapiens can cooperate in extremely flexible ways with countless numbers of strangers. That's why Sapiens rule the world, whereas ants eat our leftovers and chimps are locked up in zoos and research laboratories."

One needn't accept the evolutionary narrative in order to be fascinated by this key point. After all, isn't it the Bible's claim that God breathed into God's most advanced creature a breath of consciousness that made us, in a fundamental way, thinkers like our Creator?  

We religious people know that faith isn't responsible for everything that has proceeded from abstract thinking: the machinery of capitalism, for example, as astonishingly abstract and fictional as it is, is only as moral as its practitioners make it. Nor does the ability to imagine what isn't there mean that everything we can imagine actually is. 

Yet here is at least a small admission, from academic disciplines that Christians sometimes complain has pushed God out of every gap where there were still bits of him to be found, that faith is at the heart of humanness, as necessary as our biological wiring. It's neither a theology nor an incontrovertible fact, but I'll take it. 

Seventh-day Adventist Church Refuses Ordination to Women

By Loren Seibold

The latest conservative denomination to deny women ordination is the Seventh-day Adventist church, a denomination whose single most significant shaping force was its 19th-century prophetess and co-founder, Ellen Gould Harmon White. 

White's role in the church might have suggested that women's spiritual leadership would be welcome. But that assumption wasn't tested until the push to strengthen women's rights in the 1960s and 70s. In the 1985 meeting of the quinquennial world convention, delegates voted to allow female pastors to work under a limited "commissioned minister" license, and congregations to ordain female lay elders. The decision was welcome in many parts of the American, European, and Australian church but sat uncomfortably with others, sparking three decades of campaigning against any further moves in that direction. 

Delegates in 2010 requested a Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) with the hope of settling the question. Impetus was provided by a few smaller judicatories in the United States and Europe that pushed ahead with granting full ordination to the women ministers in their territory. The TOSC convened in 2013. Though the result of that committee's work was encouraging about the possibility of women's ordination in those parts of the world church that wanted it, a motion was presented at the 2015 meeting of the world church without the recommendation from the TOSC.

Three things worked against its passage. 

1. 

   Ted N.C. Wilson
   The shifting of the church to the global south. About three quarters of church membership is now from cultures with traditional roles for women, like Latin America, Africa and southern Asia. 
2. The selection of Ted N.C. Wilson as church president. Wilson, though a North American, won the loyalty of the conservative delegates by promising to fight against the liberalization that many feared was happening in the American church. Wilson is a skilled politician with an authoritarian style, which he used to good effect against the women's ordination movement. 
3. A new theology of male headship. Opponents made a Biblical case for male leadership while also succeeding in grouping women's ordination with homosexuality, which frightened many in the aging demographic of the church.

On July 8, 2015, at the world conference in San Antonio, TX, the motion to allow large geographical regions (divisions) to decide for themselves about women's ordination was defeated 60% to 40%. (To the disappointment of many, who hoped this vote was a referendum on all female church leadership, female commissioned ministers and female lay elders were not eliminated: the motion was confined to the question of whether divisions could grant full ordination to women in their territory.)

The denomination has tried hard to maintain uniformity in both theology and polity throughout its approximately 175-year history. In the latest session much was made of an 1875 statement by Ellen White (ironically) that the General Conference session is the highest authority of God on earth, meaning that the July 8 vote was an ex cathedra decision binding all parts of the church.

Yet some of the judicatories that had already begun ordaining women have said they'll continue to do so, in defiance of the session vote. Which leads most observers to conclude that the question is far from settled.  

 

 

 

 

Related articles

Seventh-Day Adventists Vote Against Ordaining Women

Seventh-day Adventists affirm women in ministry, but vote down their ordination

What Does New Survey Tell Us About Adventists?

By Monte Sahlin

The Pew Research Center released its 2014 Religious Landscape of the United States yesterday and this morning there are news stories about the rapid growth of "nones" (people who tell pollsters their religion is none at all) and the decline in the number of Christians. I want to point out a small piece of the data that is probably of interest only to a narrow range of readers ....

The survey found that six-tenths of one percent of the respondents identified themselves as Adventists. Of these, most (five-tenths of one percent) said they are Seventh-day Adventists specifically. Only adults are included in the survey, so if one takes the total adult population at the time the survey was conducted (last year), then the six-tenths of one percent equals 1,455,258 and the five-tenths of one percent equals 1,212,715.

The membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the United States at the end of last year was 1,124,313. In other words, 7.3% more American adults told the Pew Research Center they were Seventh-day Adventists than the number of people that the denomination has record of. And this math makes no allowance for the fact that a portion of that membership total (at least 5%) are children ages 10 through 17 who are baptized members.

Bottom line: There are an estimated 300,000 to 350,000 adults in America who have sufficient affinity to Adventist faith to tell survey-takers they are Adventists but are not accounted for in the official count of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

My own surveys (conducted in more than 1,000 local churches over the past two decades) show that about 30% of the 1,124,313 members of record have stopped attending church. That is about 340,000 people.

This means that there are about 785,000 people who make up the active participants of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in the U.S. (Those who attend at least once a month during at least nine months of the year.) And there are another 700,000 who are either participating in some other Adventist group or not participating anywhere despite their Adventist identity.

This accounting makes no effort to estimate another group, which I am sure is larger than either of the two described above. These are the people who no longer identify themselves as Adventist believers, but due to family history or background have a connection with the Adventist faith. I have personally interviewed more than a thousand of these people since 1980 and I am working on a book that will tell their stories. A very small portion of these are active in "former Adventist" groups, seeking to prove that the denomination is not legitimately a Christian faith. The vast majority have simply got on with their lives and have a mix of fond memories, respect for certain individuals they met through the church, and wry thoughts about some of the more sectarian aspects, "the silly stuff," to quote one interview. There is also some painful memories for some of the individuals in this category.

So what?

This is my faith, my denomination, so I have spent considerable time observing it. I think it is only one example of a much larger reality: Around organized religion there are large collections of human beings who have not found it beneficial to stay in the boat. At what point do we quit blaming these people and pay attention to the flaws in the institution?

America's Most Secular Cities

By Monte Sahlin

"Nones" are people who when they are asked in a survey, What is your religious preference? answer with "none." That is their religious preference is no religion. One of major trends underway in America today is the rapid growth of "nones," especially among new generations. (As we have mentioned often in this space.)

New data reports the percentage of adults who are "nones" in each of the major metropolitan areas of the United States. For those who have studied American history and geography, it comes as no surprise that (with one exception) the cities with the higher percentage of "nones" are all in the West and the North. The South and the Midwest have fewer "nones" and more people interested in and involved in religion.

Portland (Oregon) is the metro area with the highest percentage of "nones." Overall 42 percent of the adult residents have no religious preference.

Three metros tie for second place, each with a third of their adult residents who are "nones." These are all in the West: Seattle, San Francisco and Denver.

Six metros each have about a quarter of their adult residents who are "nones."

• 26 percent in Phoenix (Arizona)
• 25 percent in Tampa-St. Petersburg (Florida)
• 25 percent each in Los Angeles, Boston, Columbus, Detroit

All of these metro areas are also among the leaders in cultural and technological innovation, as well as having above-average proportions of young adults. They reveal the map of cultural tensions in America.

Source: Christian Century, April 15, 2015 (page 9)

 

What We Haven't Understood about ISIS

by Loren Seibold

The cover piece from the March Atlantic about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has received wide recognition, and for good reason: it's the most cogent explanation so far of this brutal Middle-Eastern movement. Most of us, when we heard of it, assumed ISIS was more of the same: another al-Qaeda-like terror organization. Graeme Wood explains its significant differences:

• Its level of devotion to what it regards as real Islam far exceeds that of the conservative Islamic groups we now know—and it's directed against other Muslims as much as against us infidels. While we take note of ISIS's beheading of a handful of Westerners, takfiri, excommunication of Muslims, is central to the movement, even requiring tortures such as amputations and beheading for Muslims who don't behave. ISIS is a brand of Islam that requires discipline and full devotion, which is what has made it attractive to Muslims all over the world. Furthermore, it holds al-Qaeda in contempt for not sufficiently embracing and enforcing piety.
• It's a territorial movement, revolving around the establishment of a geographical caliphate. Note that ISIS's terrorist acts have been within their territory, and they're not likely to become an offensive threat toward other nations until the caliphate is secure. Wood says, "Its threat to the United States is smaller than its all too frequent conflation with al-Qaeda would suggest." It seeks no recognition by other nations, nor other Muslims, and probably never will.
• It is also an apocalyptic movement. Al-qaeda has a self-destructive, psychopathic streak, but ISIS has a precise eschatology in mind that, they say, must lead to an end-time showdown in Dabiq, Syria. Where al-Qaeda is furtive and conveys confused motives, ISIS is relatively transparent, its intentions known. 
• The strategies that have worked with other Islamic groups might not be applicable here. For example, sending tens of thousands of Americans in to defeat them would fulfill ISIS's prophecies and thus legitimize it. Says Wood, "The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself."

Wood adds an important nuance for those of us who have wanted to believe that Islamic terror sects don't represent real Islam. ISIS is, in fact, purely Islamic, following the letter of the Koran and the hadiths, though with a distinctly restorationist hermeneutic. "People want to absolve Islam," Wood quotes scholar Bernard Haykel. "It's this 'Islam is a religion of peace' mantra. As if there is such a thing as 'Islam'! [Islam is] what Muslims do and how they interpret their texts." Which is to say, Islam need not necessarily be violent, but it would be a mistake not to recognize that violent ISIS is Islamic.

Fortunately, Wood's entire piece is on line, and is well worth reading in its entirety here.

Is "Spiritual But Not Religious" Real?

By Monte Sahlin

Nancy Ammerman's new book, Sacred Stories, Spiritual Tribes is excellent. I recommend that you read it! One interesting question she raises is about the category that is currently getting a lot of attention, the people who say, "I am interested in spiritual things, but I am not interested in religion." So much study is currently focused on this category that it now has a label among scholars and professional research writers: SBNR (Spiritual But Not Religious)

Dr. Ammerman calls SBNR a "unicorn," a species that does not exist in real life. Closer examination, she reports, finds that the people in her surveys who were "most active in organized religion, were also most committed to spiritual practices and a spiritual view of the world." She suggests that the SBNR thing is simply a device for people to tell their zealous friends to back off and leave them alone on topics related to values, spirituality and religion.

A reviewer in the Feb. 4 issue of Christian Century makes the observation that SBNR may be a media invention. "Dominant U.S. media don't seem to know how to talk about religious congregations" or spiritual life in general, so "lacking such capacity" they pretend that places exist that are not there in reality, observes Anthony Robinson, a UCC pastor.

Unlike Ammerman and Robinson, it seems, I have met a lot of people who are SBNR. Once they trust you as a friend, they are more than happy to talk about both religion and spiritual life. They express concerns, beliefs, emotional connections with the Divine; they pray, express spiritual sentiments and ask religious questions. They are turned off or simply unimpressed by the usual round of things we religious people do to express our faith both in the context of congregations and in our private lives.

Let's be honest, a lot of what we do is tradition and ritual, and not all that vital or vibrant even to those of us who enjoy it. To make faith real requires a level of creativity and authenticity that we are usually not willing to invest in. It breaks through at funerals, weddings and similar very important occasions, and sometimes even unexpectedly, but it is almost impossible to sustain daily or weekly or even once a month. That is why many religions invest so much value in "revival" or "renewal" or "reformation."

The incongruous thing about the emphasis on "revival" is that often the people who talk the most about it are the largest opponents to real change. We want the benefits of an edgy, powerful relationship with God while keeping it safely under control and limits. That is the real unicorn! I got news for you; there is no such animal. Either your experience with God is risky and upsetting, turning over things you would like to cling to, or it is boring and meaningless ritual that most of the people around you will not see a reason to give particular respect, time or energy.

SBNR is simply one aspect of being people real about organized religion. We want the riches without paying the price. We are just a little bit cheap and fraudulent, but we want people to treat it as if it were the wonder of the universe. Get real .... one way or another.

Americans Like Jews Better than Mormons and Muslims

by Loren Seibold 

For a June Pew Research Center study researchers asked what appears at first to be a fairly uncomplicated question: rate on a scale of warmest to coolest your feelings about a named religious group. Jews, Catholics, and Evangelical Christians elicited the warmest feelings; Mormons, athiests and Muslims the coolest.

• Not surprising is that we tend to be most warm toward the group we personally identify with, and Christians were most strongly represented in the survey group. The odd outlier here is the warmth felt toward Jews, who were a relatively small proportion of the panel surveyed (only 100 individuals out of a group of  3217). Does this reflect the links between Judaism and Christianity, particularly Evangelical Christians whose theology posits a central rôle for Israel in end time events? Or the outsize place of Jews in public life? Yet for their part, Jews felt quite negative toward Evangelicals—more negative than they do toward Muslims!

• While Mormons believe in Christ, and Islam is a fellow Abrahamic religion, these ended up near the bottom of the list. I am surprised by the antipathy toward Mormons, given that we have seen so many Mormons successful in American life, including a presidential candidate who was popular with Catholics and Evangelicals. Note that Islam, even though  historically related to Christianity, rated lower than rather alien eastern religions like Hinduism—and even lower than atheism.

• The survey showed that American atheists feel more positive about Jews, Hindus and Buddhists than about any of the Christian faiths. The eastern religions have strong strains of non-theism, though it isn't clear if that's what makes them more palatable to atheists, or whether it's because they tend to be less doctrinaire and evangelistic than the Abrahamic religions.

• The feelings of people with Republican leanings were more polarized toward Christianity and against atheists and Muslims than those leaning Democratic. Democrats' answers clustered to the center, suggesting less strong feelings about religion generally. There's also an age divide: older Americans felt warmer toward Jews, Evangelicals and Catholics, while younger Americans gave higher ratings to atheists and Muslims than did their elders.

• The study showed that simply knowing someone of a particular religious group results in warmer feelings about that group—proving that ignorance about those who differ from us may be the reason for our prejudices about them. 

Note that the survey asks for respondents' feelings, not what one thinks about a group's doctrine, actions, or reputation. Though one would suppose that feelings and thoughts would closely reflect one another, I wonder whether the results would look different if they'd asked people to react to the named religion in a different way.

Related articles

Pew survey: Jews most popular religious group in U.S.

Was PBS's "Secrets of the Vatican" Anti-Catholic?

My wife and I watched Frontline's "Secrets of the Vatican" in a stunned silence. There wasn't any single item there that was entirely new to us. Pedophilic priests, corruption in the Vatican Bank, a secretive Curia, the cult-like Legion of Christ, blatantly homosexual priests—all have been reported before. Frontline brought these things together in a way that leaves one feeling the erosion of the moral and spiritual foundation of the Roman church. Its only hope, it seems to me, is deep organizational repentance. 

But that's not how some Roman Catholic apologists see it. Bill Donohue of The Catholic League called "Secrets of the Vatican" "contrived," a "hit job" by "Catholic bashers."  But it's hard to argue with the central contentions of the piece, all of which are well-documented—and when Donohue tries, he sounds disingenuous. Of sexual abuse, "This problem is practically non-existent in the Catholic community these days, and is rampant in the public schools, as well as in the Orthodox Jewish community."

It is hard to hear bad things about an organization you love. But this is a classic example of the denial one hears frequently from offenders and defenders of offenders, and surprisingly often in a religious context. Examples:

1. It didn't happen. Or it isn't happening anymore. Or it's been greatly exaggerated. Or it's a thing of the past, and anyway, you should mind your own damn business.

2. And if it did happen, others are doing worse things, and you should be accusing them rather than us. Donohue: "None of these people at PBS give a hoot about the sexual abuse of minors, for if they did, they would cover those communities where it is thriving."

3. It isn't what you said, it's how you said it. Donohue complains about cinematography—"ominous dark images; dramatic music; a deep voice-over; bleak hallways; shadowy figures locking doors as a boy enters the room; the words 'Power,' Money,' and 'Sex' flashing about"—as though that minimizes the offenses documented.

4. Even if the accusations are true, we can find a few items in your presentation that are arguable or inaccurate, so that negates the rest of what you say. This blog is a good example.

5. You may be worse for pointing out our sins than we are for having committed them, because you're not forgiving and giving us a chance. I recently read a call to forgive and restore a Protestant clergyman rapist because he is such an effective proponent for a certain conservative point of view. "It was just a momentary lapse [with 8 different women identified so far] and he's beyond it now. As a Christian you have to forgive and forget and let him get on with his important ministry."

6. It's not the organization, it's just individuals in the organization. Never mind what the organization claims to be, or its authority over its people: the organization can't take responsibility for what its employees do. Catholic writer Adam Bowers, who blogs under the nom de plume Quartermaster of the Barque, adds, "This is all bad, evil stuff, but it is unfair to imply that the reasons are institutional rather than individual." My God, Adam—really? If there is nothing institutional contributing to the pedophilia in the church, then why is it so concentrated there? And, if there's no institutional reason for it, then there's nothing the church can do to correct it, either. Children, beware.

7. You just don't like us because of who we are, so our offenses, no matter how egregious, are incidental.

There are bits of truth scampering through all these excuses, but they conspire to minimize and deny horrendous problems. True, there may be less priestly pedophilia right now, with the spotlight focused so intensely on it. Yet this church first denied pedophilia, lied about it, hid it, defended priests they knew were guilty, and drug their feet about preventing it. And yes, of course sexual abuse happens in other communities, too, but that doesn't mean you're off the hook.

As for the organization having no culpability: the Roman Catholic church isn't a loose, informal gathering of like-minded individuals, like, say, Justin Beiber fans, but one of the oldest, wealthiest, most powerful and authoritarian organizations in the world, an employer of millions, and one which claims to have authority over the present behavior and eternal salvation of billions, living and dead. 

We all should hate the kind of prejudicial anti-Catholicism that references crimes of centuries ago, or resurrects old myths and lies. But there's no way that current Roman Catholic church leaders can wriggle out of responsibility for terrible things that happened, and are happening, because of their action or inaction.

Bowers adds this disgustingly self-pitying "do what we say, ignore what we do" comment: 

"In other words, the Church isn’t despised because of the sexual abuse crisis or any other scandal (this is just delicious opportunity); she is hated because in spite of the sin and hypocrisy of all of her members, she always holds to what is true, even while all of us individual Catholics perpetually fall short."

What puerile nonsense. Your truth is only as good as how you live it. Roman Catholic churchmen have allowed untold suffering because of arrogant and unrepentant ecclesiasticism. It's far too soon for them to claim they've repented enough and can move on to being victims. And to their credit, the wisest among them are taking responsibility for it.

What we saw on Frontline wasn't perfect reportage, but it wasn't anti-Catholicism, either. It was the press holding accountable an organization that hasn't managed to do that for itself. 

What Young Adults Think about the Bible

Today's young adults, the Millennial generation, now 19 to 34 years of age, have significantly less regard for the Bible than do older generations. That is the general conclusion from a survey conducted for the American Bible Society by Barna Research Group.

Nearly two in five Millennials (39 percent) report that they never read the Bible, as compared to half of the total adult population. One in five (19 percent) are of the opinion that no literature is sacred or has divine origins compared to just 13 percent of the total adult population.

Half of the overall adult population in the United States say the Bible has too little influence in society and it contains everything a person needs to know to live a meaningful life. Among Millennials only a third agree: specifically 35 percent agree that Bible contains everything a person neds to know to live a meaningful life and 30 percent agree that it is too little influence in American society.

Among research specialists, Barna's surveys are generally known to have a conservative and Evangelical Christian skew .... so it is probable that things would be even worse if the same survey were replicated by NORC at the University of Chicago or the Pew Research Center or Hartford Institute for Religion Research, which tend to have less skew.

What does this mean? For pastors, churches, ministries and ordinary Christians who want to share their faith with Millennials, it means that the authoritative use of Scripture to prove a point or answer a question is unlikely to work. The conventional structure of doctrine and moral rules by using Bible quotes and logic is less and less feasible, unless you are dealing with Christians who are largely disconnected from the contemporary intellectual environment. Alternative approaches to share the gospel have to be found.

New Book About Waco Reopens Questions

By Loren Seibold

When the Waco siege happened, I was a Seventh-day Adventist pastor studying in a Presbyterian seminary. I remember my embarrassment at the questions in class the day it happened. I did what the rest of the Seventh-day Adventist church did: denied that the Branch Davidian had anything to do with us—even though they were a historical offshoot of the church, most of them ex or current Seventh-day Adventists, and studied the same prophecies and prophet (Ellen G. White) that we did.

Clive Doyle was one of the few believers to escape the fire in the Waco compound. He’s now written a new book called Journey to Waco. “If people read this account, they will at least gain a different perspective on who David Koresh was, where he was coming from, who we were, and why we believe the way we do,” he says. “Most people think ‘cult’ about us and think we are people who were brainwashed and deceived. They think our church members don’t know what they’re doing or where they’re going. Hopefully, my story can open their eyes.”

Indeed, most people do think cult. In a review in The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell brings together the literature on the subject to show that almost no one tried to understand Koresh or why people were in the compound. The ATF prepared a response for bank robbers, when they were dealing with quiet, principled Bible students. The besiegers mishandled every step of the process. Whatever paranoia the group had extracted from Scripture (it was centered around an interpretation of Revelation's 5th seal) the ATF’s ham-handed raid reinforced.

Koresh was, to be sure, an odd yet charismatic character, and his taking young spiritual brides was repugnant. But it was all based on Scriptural explanations that most of the compound had accepted. As another Branch Davidianist, Steve Schneider, said, “All of these places talk about a man in the last days that’s a sinner. He can do one thing, open up the words of the book, open up the Seven Seals. Can’t do any miracles, doesn’t raise the dead, heal the sick, isn’t a psychic but . . . if people have questions about life and death, eternal life, no matter what the question is, he will show it in context from the book.” And Koresh could, at least to the satisfaction of his followers.

Conspicuously absent from any attempt to solve the standoff was the Seventh-day Adventist church, its theologians and leaders. At the time, the denomination, always nervous about being perceived as a cult, denied any connection to the Branch Davidian. The theologian who stepped in to try to solve the problem by looking at it through the cultists’ eyes was James Tabor of the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. He engaged Koresh on his own terms, Koresh even implying he'd turn himself in when his study of Revelation with Tabor was complete. Writes Gladwell, “Tabor and Arnold made a tape—a long, technical discussion of an alternative reading of Revelation—aired it on the radio, and sent it to Koresh. Koresh listened and was persuaded. He had been called a liar, a child molester, a con man, and a phony messiah. He had been invited to treat his children like bargaining chips and his followers like hostages. But now someone was taking his beliefs seriously.”

But the ATF refused to wait even a few days.

Even if you don’t read the book (and much of it is self-serving, as Doyle is still a believer), do read “Sacred and Profane” by Gladwell. It’s a mind-bending exploration of why we don't listen to people who are different from us.