Faith in Context

Religious Persecution Still Happening, Increasing

By Loren Seibold

Americans tend to take the measure of religious hostility from their own relatively calm religious culture. While we see interest in religion (and to some extent, conflict about it) declining here, religion remains a major social force elsewhere. Still, a surprising number of fundamentalist, charismatic and restorationist movements claim to rely on increased religious persecution as the marker for Christ's soon return. Some, like Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses, all of whom have some form of personal persecution in their eschatology, have at times actively searched for and made note of signs of hostility against themselves, which they find useful to motivate their base.

According to a recent study by the Pew Center's Religion and Public Life Project, hostilities involving religion reached a six-year peak in 2012. About a third of the 198 countries inluded in the project experienced significant religious hostilities in 2012. A quote: 

Religious hostilities increased in every major region of the world except the Americas. The sharpest increase was in the Middle East and North Africa, which still is feeling the effects of the 2010-11 political uprisings known as the Arab Spring. There also was a significant increase in religious hostilities in the Asia-Pacific region, where China edged into the “high” category for the first time.… Among the world’s 25 most populous countries, Egypt, Indonesia, Russia, Pakistan and Burma (Myanmar) had the most restrictions on religion in 2012, when both government restrictions and social hostilities are taken into account.

As the last sentence indicates, the study draws a distinction between social hostilities and hostilities instigated by government restrictions on religious practice. This latter has stayed about level, with roughly 3 in 10 countries maintaining high or very high restrictions on religious practice. 

Some contrasts from 2011:

• Abuse of religious minorities by private individuals or groups for acts perceived as offensive or threatening to the majority faith: up from 38% to 47% of the countries studied

• Violence, or the threat of violence used to compel people to adhere to religious norms: 39% of the countries, up from 33%

• Harassment of women over religious dress: up from 25% to 32%

• Mob violence related to religion: up from 18% in 2011 to 25% in 2012

• Religion-related terrorist violence: remaining level at 20% of countries in the study

• Sectarian violence: 18% of the countries in the survey, up from 15%

And which religions are having the most trouble? From the Pew Center study:

Members of the world’s two largest religious groups – Christians and Muslims, who together comprise more than half of the global population – were harassed in the largest number of countries, 151 and 135, respectively. Jews, who comprise less than 1% of the world’s population, experienced harassment in a total of 95 countries, while members of other world faiths were harassed in a total of 77 countries.

Looked at regionally, you won't be surprised that the Middle East and Northern Africa top the list of places with the most religious strife. (Among Muslims, intersectarian violence is still more common than hostility against the West.) The big surprise is the amount of religious hostility in secular Europe, which matches the Asia-Pacific region in number of countries where hostility occurred. One big reason there: harassment of women for religious dress, specifically Muslim women who wear face coverings. 

Most American Christians have ignored hostility against other religions, or against Christians in other places. It might be wise for us to consider the possibility that what happens elsewhere and to others could happen here, and to us. 

Related articles

Pew: Religious Hostility Reaches Six-Year High Worldwide

Pastors Caught in the Middle over Gay Marriage

by Loren Seibold

As we watch the political muddle of states trying to sort out policy on gay marriage, spare a thought for a group caught in the middle: the clergy.

I recently wrote on another blog about a Seventh-day Adventist pastor who was dismissed from his position as a Bible teacher because he signed the legal (for Washington state) license for his stepdaughter's marriage to another woman. But what was legal for the state wasn't legal for Brett Hadley. In the authoritarian Seventh-day Adventist church, Hadley was quickly fired.

The Methodist church handles the matter by holding trials for pastors accused of marrying gay couples. Frank Schaefer, a United Methodist minister of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, was in November found guilty of violating UMC's Book of Discipline by officiating (back in 2007) at the wedding of his son to another man. Schaefer subsequently had his credentials revoked. (Underlining the similarity to a civil court: Schaefer is appealing the decision.) According to Religious News Service, four other Methodist clergy trials may be convened soon.

To some, the matter may seem simple: if your denomination prohibits marrying gay couples, then don't do it, no matter what state law permits. But in a profession known for organizational compliance, there are still some pastors motivated by conscience and belief more than by polity. A pastor once said to me, "God called me to minister. The denomination I landed in was an accident." As gay marriage is recognized by a growing number of states, it should hardly be surprising that some pastors who hold views that differ from the denomination or congregation they work for will perform weddings for gay couples.

It's hard to know what to make of the UMC's clergy trials. On one hand, they are indicative of defined process and, one hopes, justice. Yet the mere mention of pastors "on trial," especially over something that many regard as a matter of justice to a long-persecuted subgroup, sounds vaguely persecutory itself. (Some Methodist leaders are demanding a discussion of the matter, earlier than the denomination's next General Conference in 2016, perhaps hoping to mitigate PR-damaging situations like Schaefer's.)

We are far from a consensus. Churches are divided. So are citizens. With SCOTUS's passing up the chance to ban gay marriage, state courts are opponents' last chance, and they've generally been supportive of gay marriage. (More likely: renewed challenges to gay marriage bans.) A popular HuffPo piece contrasts Pope Francis' comments on homosexuality with those that got “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson suspended from the popular A&E reality show. Never mind the number of ways the comparison between the two men is absurd: it's one more demonstration of how polarized we are. 

Related articles

Thousands of United Methodists petition bishop: end gay marriage prosecutions

The Destabilizing Islamic Divide

by Loren Seibold

It's hardly a novel observation that it's easier to make negative judgments about people who we know little about. Early in my lifetime, we Americans made many negative assumptions about ordinary Russians based on the actions of a few leaders. Today, the same is true of Muslims. For example, Americans believe, based on events like the destruction of the World Trade Center, that there is widespread Muslim animus primarily directed toward them. (This despite the undeniable fact that the West has taken more conflict to them than they've brought to us.) Some assume that there is something flawed in the Muslim culture or character that makes them value living in peace less than we do.

The Pew Research Center is a wonderful resource for understanding faith around the world. One of their latest surveys has to do with attitudes of Middle-Eastern Muslims toward the sectarian strife in their own faith community. It shows that most Muslims are concerned about extremism, and recognize that there's as much or more animosity between Muslims as toward Christians or the West. 67% of Lebanese Muslims, and 52% of Iraqis are concerned about the sectarian tensions between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims. Both groups spawn extremists and terorists. According to a 2012 report from the National Counterterrorism Center, more violence is directed against other Muslims than against the West.

The Sunni-Shia divide is obscure to us, for the same reasons that we don't understand the Muslim world in general. Much like the Catholic-Protestant divide, there are historical reasons, practical differences, and prejudices that are almost impossible to explain to someone outside the culture. Historically, the divide began with a conflict over who should have succeeded Muhammed as leader of the faith. The Sunnis hold that leadership passed to caliphs elected by the Islamic elders after his death, the Shias that Muhammed's cousin and son-in-law Ali was God's chosen successor. This led to them to giving authority to hadiths (extra-Quranic teachings and commentary of the prophet) recorded by different followers and companions of Muhammed. (Some historians say that none of the hadiths are as early or authentic as their followers think they are.)

Springing from their belief in Divine selection of leaders, Shia gives much authority to contemporary Ayatollahs and Imams. It shouldn't be a surprise then that religiously-intolerant Iran and Iraq are the home of the majority of Shias. Most of the rest of the Islamic world, about 85%, is Sunni.

In every major teaching the two sides are in agreement: God and his prophet Muhammed, heaven, hell, angels and predestination. Both groups practice the five pillars including daily prayers and fasting for Ramadan. More interesting to me is what divides them: the Sunni reject the Shia practice of appealing to dead relatives for help or guidance, and are less likely to approve devotional exercises at the tombs of Muslim saints. Shia regard their human leaders, Imams and Ayatollahs, as centrally authoritative and in some cases sinless or infallible.

A particularly interesting finding of this study is that some Muslim attitudes vary less between sects than they do between countries, suggesting that nationalism has had a major effect on devotion. Both Sunni and Shia in Lebanon and Azerbaijan regard religion as of less importance than Muslims in the other countries studied, and fewer than half of Azerbaijanis of either sect keep strictly the Ramadan fast. 

One thing is sure: it is oversimplistic to assign the blame for Middle-Eastern conflict to a decifiency in the Muslim faith or character. There are multiple causes, including Western wars and policies. It's also useful to remember that we Christians have a parallel history: from the Crusades to the Thirty Years' War to the Inquisition, Christians shed a great deal of blood, both inside and outside our faith community, for the sake of defending what some regarded as orthodoxy.

Related articles

Many Sunnis and Shias Worry About Religious Conflict - Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project

Muslims: Sectarianism and its Satanism

"Porn on the Brain": What Is a Moral Argument?

by Loren Seibold

BBC4's recent documentary "Porn on the Brain" (still available on youTube) generated a lot of ink in the UK and the US. Indeed, it was remarkable in several ways. First, that it originated in secular Britain, a country with low regard for the standards of sexual morality that are still given lip service in Christian America. Second, it was hosted by Martin Daubney, best know as the ex-editor of "lads mag" Loaded, which gives it the allure of witnessing an enlightment and conversion of sorts. (Lads mags aren't hardcore porn, but unquestionably fall in the "boys will be boys" objectification of women genre. A popular American example is Maxim.) Third, and most important, it's a popularized acknowledgement that ready availability of pornography might have serious psychological ramifications, particularly for those whose brains are still forming. This is from Daubney's accompanying piece in the Daily Mail: 

"I'd been invited to sit in on a forward-thinking class led by sex education consultant Jonny Hunt, who is regularly asked into schools to discuss sex and relationships. To establish what these kids knew about sex - including pornography - he had asked the children to write an A-Z list of the sexual terms they knew, no matter how extreme. Most of these children had just hit puberty and some were clearly still children: wide-eyed, nervous, with high-pitched voices. Some of the girls were beginning their first forays into make-up. Several wore braces on their teeth. Everybody was smartly turned out in school uniform, and the most anti-authority statement in the room was a tie worn deliberately short.… These were clearly good children, from good homes. So far, so very, very ordinary. 

"But when Jonny pinned their lists on the board … the first word every single boy and girl in the group put on their list was 'anal'. When questioned, they had all - every child in a class of 20 - seen sodomy acted out in porn videos. I was stunned they even knew about it - I certainly hadn't heard of it at that age - let alone had watched it and as a result may even have wanted to try it. One 15-year-old girl said, 'Boys expect porn sex in real life'. And one boy - to choruses of approval - spoke of his revulsion for pubic hair, which he called a 'gorilla'. When Jonny pointed out that pubic hair was normal in real life, the boys scoffed, but some of the girls were angry that the boys' template of what to expect from real girls had clearly already been set by porn. 

"By the end of the hour-long class - and three others that followed with other children - I was profoundly saddened by what I had witnessed. While teenage boys will always be fascinated by, and curious about, sex, what's now considered 'normal' by under-18s is an entirely distorted view of intercourse and the way relationships should be conducted."

"Porn on the Brain" hasn't the journalistic seriousness of, say, Frontline, but it's pretty sobering, and probably right for the audience it aims at. Daubney presents evidence that exposure to pornography in the young is addictive, and messes with development, mental health, sexual performance and relationships. 

A thought that struck me watching it is how different this is from what we used to handle under the heading of "morality". "Porn on the Brain" is about what is or isn't good for you. Is that moral argument, or merely an observation about health, like tobacco use will give you cancer or exercise helps you live longer? 

A quick and dirty definition of morality is that it's the study of right and wrong. Certainly "Porn on the Brain" isn't Christian morality (though some have used this documentary to back a Christian view.) Yet there is here no sense that a sexual act is wrong because of some innate sexual morality that can be described with concepts like adultery, sin, or purity. Daubney assumes the existence of porn and rampant masturbation; he merely mourns for the innocent porn of his youth, smiling topless girls you had to sneak around to find, as opposed to porn made by "sexual psychopaths" and available at a click. 

In spite of the slightness of its moral component, "Porn on the Brain" may have opened a conversation with a group that is used to pornography being talked about as legal or illegal, but haven't understood why it might be bad. It occurs to me that this may be the future of all discussion of sexual morality in a secular and libertarian world: to talk about what may or may not be healthy. The problem, of course, is that it is then subject to whatever scientific studies one wants to cite, and there are others quite willing to argue the other side of this issue.  

 

Related articles

Raising Christian Kids in a Sex-Filled Culture

Why Matt Walsh Is Wrong About Porn

Will the Last Person to Leave the Cathedral Please Turn Out the Lights?

by Loren Seibold

Last week my brother and I attended morning mass at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Evangelist in Brecon, the seat of the bishop of Swansea and Brecon in the Church in Wales. For those of us with a taste for such things, the service was lovely, not to mention extravagant by the standards of most churches: choir, pipe organ, incense and three priests in posh frocks. It's hard to beat the grandeur (and the acoustics) of a cathedral built in 1538. 

My observations probably won't surprise you if you know anything at all about Christianity in the UK. In this massive edifice were seated perhaps 30 worshipers, all of them elderly. From an announcement sheet in the missalette it appears the church has other ministries, such as a food distribution center. Yet that doesn't translate into participation in weekly worship. What the priests and musicians were doing was beautiful, historical, venerable, but apparently not especially winsome to the people of Brecon. 

It's hard to measure religious faith, because what people say they believe differs from what they do about it, and notably from what they say they do about it. UK church attendance estimates ("regular attendance" is usually considered once a month) range between 6% and 10%, depending upon whether you're talking about Christians or C of E members. Earlier this year a C of E press release claimed that a mere .3%  drop from 2012 translated into the guardedly good news that weekly attendance might have hit bottom. Just remember that that bottom is 1.1 million out of 56 million Britons—about 2%. As The Guardian's Andrew Brown says the graphs "look like the cool-down portion of a bicycle ride – the precipitous and frightening descent is over, and now there is just a gentle slightly downward path." He adds, "There isn't really a large portion of hope in the age profile and there is nothing in the figures to supply a cheerful story."

Though I appreciated the worship service, I admit I've never felt so keenly the out-of-touchness of organized religious worship as while watching three men in gold brocade dresses read 500-year-old prayers in Oxbridge accents to a mere handful of grayheads. Yet I'm reluctant to blame it on ritual. People in the UK still turn to churches in large numbers for some very ritualized services: weddings, christenings, funerals. Christmas and Easter attendance is up, too. It might even be that ritual is the best thing the Anglican church has going for it. Just don't expect people to sit through it more than a couple of times a year. 

The preacher in the Brecon Cathedral that morning (who in person bore a passing resemblance to Martin Clunes) blamed a great deal on Richard Dawkins' and his ilk for their arrogant opposition of religion. What crossed my mind was one of one of the most famous ripostes in British history, by prostitute Mandy Rice-Davies when the prosecutor in the Profumo scandal told her Lord Astor denied having even met her: "He would, wouldn't he?" It may not have been a profound sermon, but it was an honestly defensive one: we would say it's someone else's fault, wouldn't we?

This is the cross that we Christians are currently crucifying ourselves on, throughout the cultures that brought Christianity to the world. The system we've capitalized for two millennia fewer and fewer people value. We've too many big buildings, offices, titles, rituals, books, doctrines and degrees to admit easily the irrelevance of what we're doing with them. We know we're losing our audience, yet are at a loss to know how to respond. Andrew Brown says that the question is "whether things are going to change, or whether the church will pootle along, like an exhausted cyclist, until it finally wobbles over and collapses."

American Christianity, freighted by less history and more experienced in business building, has tried to be relevant. Yet successful empire builders like Osteen, Hybels, Warren, and Jakes raise just as many questions of authenticity to the message of Jesus as do the old cathedral denominations. Wearing a Hawaiian shirt instead of a cassock and surplice, building an auditorium instead of a cathedral, having one rich and famous pastor instead of an entire curia, doesn't excuse one from questions of how wealth, power, heirarchy and recognition fit with the message of Jesus. 

Or maybe relevance—that so, so American ideal—isn't even what we should be worrying about. All I know is that there's still spiritual interest out there. Are we in the the church able to help people make something good, truthful and life-affirming of that interest? Or are we too busy being the church?

Related articles

Brecon Cathedral again (and again)

The Cathedral of Christianity

So Just Because You're Gay, Do You Have to Act Gay?

by Loren Seibold

Most of my Christian friends, even some of the very conservative ones, understand that homosexual people didn't choose to be homosexual. Still, many of us think, "But why must they act on it?" We interpret Scripture to say that heterosexual people should refrain from sexual intercourse if they are unmarried. Can't the same legitimately be expected of people with a homosexual orientation?

I was recently sent a link to this presentation by Matthew Vines, a gay Christian scholar, given at a church in Wichita in 2012. I've heard others give similar interpretations of these six anti-homosexuality passages, though Matthew presents them with a clarity and humility that makes them a pleasure to hear again. Whatever you think about the larger question, this is well-crafted apologetics.

One section in his introduction particularly caught my attention. It's an exegesis that was new to me, and it made me think again about the celibacy question. This is a transcript from Matthew's presentation.

"In the first two chapters of Genesis, God creates the heavens and the earth, plants, animals, man, and everything in the earth. And He declares everything in creation to be either good or very good – except for one thing. In Genesis 2:18, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” And yes, the suitable helper or partner that God makes for Adam is Eve, a woman. And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men – for straight men. But for gay men, that isn’t the case. For them, a woman is not a suitable partner. And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men—for gay men, it’s another gay man who is a suitable partner. And the same is true for lesbian women. For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner. But the necessary consequence of the traditional teaching on homosexuality is that, even though gay people have suitable partners, they must reject them, and they must live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own. We are now declaring good the very first thing in Scripture that God declared not good: for the man to be forced to be alone. And the fruit that this teaching has borne has been deeply wounding and destructive.

"This is a major problem. By holding to the traditional interpretation, we are now contradicting the Bible’s own teachings: the Bible teaches that it is not good for the man to be forced to be alone, and yet now, we are teaching that it is."

You might find it helpful to hear this 1-hour presentation, if not to be convinced, at least to hear from a thoughtful gay Christian who respects the Bible. Matthew also has a website that includes the transcript of the presentation.

What We Believe and What We Feel

by Loren Seibold

I depart today from the usual concerns of this blog to comment on a matter of faith, but this time in a very personal context. Last Thursday Norma Sahlin, the wife and partner of my friend and fellow FiC blogger Monte Sahlin, died. There is nothing more we can do for Norma, except remember her fondly. Monte, in all ways a good and gentle man, is grieving. 

Nearly every religion says that death is not the end. In the Abrahamic religions we picture another life beyond this one, marginally like this one but immeasurably better. In the non-theistic religions each life gets somehow folded back into a collective consciousness. In yet other cultures, the ancestors remain, watching and advising. But few in human history have let themselves believe that death is final. Somehow, we insist, it must continue. 

Yet it is a belief honored more in breach than observance. What we believe, we don't necessarily feel. I have never attended a funeral without tears. And I hope I never shall. Religions mistake when they speak as though this life means nothing, as though it is but an anteroom to… we're not quite sure what. If it is so insignificant, then why do we want so desperately for it to continue? Why do we mourn its end? That Christ stepped down into this life honored it, made it important, perhaps more important than heaven and the hereafter. 

Even Paul (himself treading right on the edge of trying to dry tears with a postulate) admits that we must grieve, but hopes that perhaps rumor of a resurrection—a possibility with little empirical evidence—will temper our grief. But not in the moment. Rarely in the moment. The promises of our faith explain, but only after the tears are gone. And even then, even as we intone, "I believe in the resurrection from the dead, and life everlasting," it sometimes seems as though we're trying to convince ourselves by speaking it in chorus. Will it really happen? Can it? 

I suspect this is why so many words of comfort are so discomforting, even if true. It is why those of us who attend people at times of loss learn (if we are at all wise) not to explain, not to diminish grief with easy words. There are no easy answers. Even the promise of the resurrection is (in the dark moment) too easy an answer. The best we can do is for those of us who still have traction on this narrow place where we plant our feet, to reach out a hand to those who have, for the moment, lost it.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe God reaches with no hands but ours.

I leave you with this anything-but-easy confession from C.S. Lewis, upon the death of his wife, Joy.

"Meanwhile, where is God? This is one of the most disquieting symptoms. When you are happy, so happy that you have no sense of needing Him, so happy that you are tempted to feel His claims upon you as an interruption, if you remember yourself and turn to Him with gratitude and praise, you will be — or so it feels — welcomed with open arms. But go to Him when your need is desperate, when all other help is vain, and what do you find? A door slammed in your face, and a sound of bolting and double bolting on the inside. After that, silence. You may as well turn away. The longer you wait, the more emphatic the silence will become. There are no lights in the windows. It might be an empty house. Was it ever inhabited? It seemed so once. And that seeming was as strong as this. What can this mean? Why is He so present a commander in our time of prosperity and so very absent a help in time of trouble?

"I tried to put some of these thoughts to C. this afternoon. He reminded me that the same thing seems to have happened to Christ: 'Why hast thou forsaken me?' I know. Does that make it easier to understand?

"Not that I am (I think) in much danger of ceasing to believe in God. The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not 'So there's no God after all,' but 'So this is what God's really like. Deceive yourself no longer.'

"Our elders submitted and said, 'Thy will be done.' How often had bitter resentment been stifled through sheer terror and an act of love — yes, in every sense, an act — put on to hide the operation?

"Of course it's easy enough to say that God seems absent at our greatest need because He is absent — non-existent. But then why does He seem so present when, to put it frankly, we don't ask for Him?"

 

How to Demolish Your Own Good Reputation

By Loren Seibold

Dr. Ben Carson has received a lot of well-deserved praise for his skills as a neurosurgeon. He even wrote a book about his experience coming up from poverty to worldwide acclaim called (if you'll forgive his self-compliment, which in any case is hard to deny) Gifted Hands. He's also a proud member of the conservative Seventh-day Adventist church.

But his foray into politics has been an embarrassing one, starting with his call-out of Barack Obama at a prayer breakfast. The only person who seems not to know he's embarrassing himself is Dr. Carson himself. The latest gaff is telling an audience at the Values Voter Summit that "Obamacare is, I think, the worst thing that has happened since slavery. It is slavery." 

Look on the bright side: at least he didn't compare the ACA to the Third Reich.

It's hard to believe that such an intelligent man as Dr. Carson would make such a moronic statement. He appears to have fallen into a not-uncommon trap of aging great men, who believe their success in one field makes them experts in every other, and gives them permission to hyperbolize as much as they please. That Fox News and Republican leaders have made overtures toward him may be insulating him from the truth. Yet it's hard to escape the feeling, when seeing him interviewed by Sean Hannity, that he's nothing more to them than the conservative black man of the moment, the current anti-Obama, a dark-skinned face who will say what they want their constituency to hear, and who they'll abandon just as quickly as they embraced him. (See Steele, Michael.) The group who hate Barack Obama for his race will hate Dr. Carson just as much should he move any deeper into politics, as he's hinted he might.

Sadly, there are people with weak judgment who might think that a black man whose own people were transported, beaten, and treated like animals should know what he's talking about when he makes the comparison between the Affordable Care Act and slavery.

No one begrudges Dr. Carson his opinion on the ACA. I'm not a big fan of it myself: a single-payer option would have been better in the long term. Still, you don't win arguments by stupid overstatement. You only win stupider, more prejudiced followers. 

The effect is to lower Dr. Carson's esteem among those who have looked up to him, like black people seeking education and social betterment, not to mention the Seventh-day Adventist church that has been so proud of him.

More on famous Seventh-day Adventists here

Tax Churches? Or the NFL?

by Loren Seibold

Churches have income, employees and capital, and carry on business, sometimes business that makes profits. So should they pay taxes?

A piece by Amelia Thomson-Deveaux in Slate brought the question to mind again recently. In response to political initiatives that advocate churches' right to openly endorse candidates and tell congregants for whom they ought to vote, she has a suggestion: "Religious leaders who want the liberty to endorse candidates can give up their churches’ tax deduction." Matthew Yglesias takes off from Amelia's piece to suggest that we simply tax all churches. Inasmuch as every church across the religious spectrum says it's right and the others wrong, he concludes (a bit tongue-in-cheek) "Whichever faith you think is the one true faith, it's undeniable that the majority of this church-spending is going to support false doctrines. Under the circumstances, tax subsidies for religion are highly inefficient." 

These folks have an uphill fight: the church tax exemption is a popular one. But the pro-church taxers may have a point.

For one thing, not all churches are especially self-sacrificing or charitable—or for that matter, very religious. A lot of very profitable ventures (like church-run health care) hide behind the religious exemption to enrich themselves. For another, it puts the government in the position of having to decide what is a church and what isn't. Case in point: apparently Scientology is. 

Before you decide, Read Gregg Easterbrook's latest piece in the Atlantic, where you'll discover that the NFL—yes, that NFL, the National Football League, the wealthiest sports franchise in the world—has long had written into Federal law a special non-profit, non-tax status just like churches have, plus exemption from anti-trust rules—and has a near-perfect record of getting huge gifts from taxpayers in the form of new facilities. If you can read  "How the NFL Fleeces Taxpayers" without your blood boiling, you're a better person than I am. A few exerpts: 

"State laws and IRS rules generally forbid the use of nonprofit status as a subterfuge for personal enrichment. Yet according to the league’s annual Form 990, in 2011, the most recent year for which numbers are available, the NFL paid a total of almost $60 million to its leading five executives."

"Judith Grant Long, a Harvard University professor of urban planning, calculates that league-wide, 70 percent of the capital cost of NFL stadiums has been provided by taxpayers, not NFL owners. … When ongoing costs are added, Long’s research finds, the Buffalo Bills, Cincinnati Bengals, Cleveland Browns, Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, Kansas City Chiefs, New Orleans Saints, San Diego Chargers, St. Louis Rams, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Tennessee Titans have turned a profit on stadium subsidies alone—receiving more money from the public than they needed to build their facilities."

People have said that football is an American religion. This may be the proof.

Related articles

'Fricking Ridiculous' NFL Stadium Seat Fees Cost Thousands - But Fans Pay Up

Online petition asks Congress to revoke NFL's tax-exempt status

The Dark Side of Virginity

by Loren Seibold

Growing up in a conservative church I learned that Scripture demanded perfect sexual purity before marriage. The way the subject was framed even made it seem a virtue to be ignorant and naive. Implied (and sometimes said) was that sexual interest couldn't coexist with faith. Consequently some left the church precisely when they needed a church family most. Others stayed and learned hypocrisy.

Some Christian commentators are questioning the high place we've given virginity. In the Christian press Sarah Bessey, Elizabeth Esther, Rachel Held Evans, Jen Pollock Michel and Carolyn Custis James have all taken on the subject. Writes Bessey in "I Am Damaged Goods", "I was nineteen years old and crazy in love with Jesus when that preacher told an auditorium I was 'damaged goods' because of my sexual past. He was making every effort to encourage this crowd of young adults to 'stay pure for marriage.' He was passionate, yes, well-intentioned, and he was a good speaker, very convincing indeed. And he stood up there and shamed me, over and over and over again."

We Christians pride ourselves on a sterner morality: "thus saith the Lord" trumps any other reason for being good. Yet inseparable from—ideally, homogenized into—a specifically Christian morality is something that we don't always mention: Divine grace as a guarantee of forgiveness and restoration.

In practice, the line between acceptable Christian behavior and forgiveness for misbehavior is a shifty one. The church has had a tough time finding the balance between discouraging sin and encouraging sinners. The reformed sinner back from a life of addiction and debauchery may be a hero, making the rounds of the Christian lecture circuit to show what God can do. At the same time the young Christian trying to make early adult decisions is protectively shamed and scolded and left to believe there won’t be a way back."Your life will be ruined if you lose your virginity" is self-fulfilling: it gets ruined at least in part because we said it would be. And admitting there’s forgiveness isn't giving permission. 

Understandably, Christian leaders don’t want young people to do what they’d later regret. There’s plenty to fear about the effects of promiscuity: unwanted children, STDs, exploitation and psychological damage. I think you can make a good argument that fewer of these things would happen if there were any way for the church to talk about sex except "Don’t!" 

Given what is apparently permitted under the seventh commandment (concubines, multiple wives, women as chattel, adolescent marriage, child-bearing slaves), it’s hard to see how it can make the case for the judgemental purity preached from many pulpits. The New Testament is clearer on adultery and marriage, but it still doesn’t come up to the standard of conservative churches—a standard Elizabeth Esther calls our "new and improved" virginity. "Ultimately" she says, "we implied that a woman’s inherent worth and dignity could be measured by whether or not a man has touched her."

Perhaps that's why where the church is leading, few are following. A 2009 study  by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy concluded that 80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) admitted to having had sex. (See more here.) Another study shows that the Christian purity movement has been a crashing failure: "Teens who took a virginity pledge have sexual relationships that are nearly identical to those of similar teens who did not make such a pledge. The one area in which the pledge does make an impact is negative: Teens who took a virginity pledge and did have sex were less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control."

There must be more effective ways to help young people grow up to have happy Christian families.

 

Related articles

Sexy Sunday: Virginity is a harmful construct

Being a virgin