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. 

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.

What is the Book of Revelation Really About?

by Monte Sahlin

Many conservative Protestant/evangelical Christians read the Book of Revelation as a tool for predicting the end of life as we know it. Is that the way God intended it to be read and understood, or did He have a different purpose in mind?

The document "is about how Christians can follow Jesus while living in an empire whose political, economic and cultural power is seductive. Revelation sets up a tension between Christians who accommodate themselves to the empire and those who separate themselves from and oppose the empire." That is a very different perspective, advocated by theologian Warren Carter.

It is consistent with the language and theme analysis scholarship that links the Book of Revelation to the sermon of Jesus in Matthew 24-25, which begins with the question (from the disciples), "When" will be the time of the end of the second coming, but moves into a response by Jesus that is about "how" to wait for His return. This theme of "how to wait" connects directly to the above perspective on Revelation and is probably closer to the original reading than many of the currently popular ways of reading the book.

What do you think? Why?

Christian Faith and Pacificism, Social Justice & Life

By Monte Sahlin

A paragraph from a recent article in Christianity Today by recently retired editor David Neff caught my eye. I think this is particularly interesting in view of the reactions to a number of statements by the new Catholic pope.

Reflecting on the fact that early Christians were clear about Christ's teaching against participation in the military, executions, abortions, etc., Neff writes, "How did the church lose its radical commitment to life? One key factor ... was that the apocalyptic framework of Jesus' teaching faded. Jesus promised to come back soon to establish his kingdom. But centuries passed, the Christian population grew, and the kingdom of God became associated with a church endowed with state power and a state blessed by church leaders."

As Christian leaders worry about the decline in religious organizations these days and the particular decrease in people interested in organized religion, perhaps someone needs to point out that a Christian expression that lacks institutional strength may be a path to greater authenticity and spiritual fidelity. A friend and fellow pastor told me long ago, "If the oncoming generation is not interested in organized religion, we need to offer disorganized religion."

A baby born in a shed may prove a stronger spiritual figure than a prince born in splendor and power and wealth. Pope Francis identifies himself with humility and simple lifestyle, and advocates on behalf of the poor and against consumer values, because that has always been the message of Jesus Christ. There is nothing really new here, except as it contrasts with those who have gone before him who were focusing more on the values of the world than on the values of Jesus.

To be a real follower of Jesus means to swear off the constant urgency of self-interest, the building of wealth for one's self, and the political power and influence that can so easily be maninpulated on behalf of "right" goals. Fundamental Christlikeness has been lost among all the institutional imperatives and fancy theories of religious establishments. Many of the Christian leaders in our world today need to be told to shut up, sit down and love your neighbor as yourself and the Lord God with all your heart. A faith that focuses on the return of Jesus and the establishment of His kingdom on Earth is central to that new/old message. It is ever timely.

"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

Can the Internet Keep Us Honest?

By Loren Seibold

The nuances of truth-telling and falsehood have always been near the top of Christian ethical concerns. We Christians say that even if you can successfully fool other human beings, God is watching. A piece in the September Atlantic explores a new frontier in this discussion: more people than ever before are watching, too. Living on the internet means that as never before in history we leave a trail of everything we do and say. It's easy to tell lies on the internet, but hard to lie securely. 

Christian criticism of the internet has centered around two somewhat contradictory concerns: its potential for secret sin (false identities, predation, online gambling, pornography) and the erosion of personal privacy. Megan Garber thinks the second mitigates the first, or at least certain aspects of it. And she may be right. Early on, the growth of information on the net outpaced our ability to find it. But Google has organized the internet , and sophisticated tools in the hands of professionals can make mince of whatever privacy we thought we had.

Everyone lies, although Garber presents evidence that we lie less and about things of less consequence than a moral pessimist might assume. "Our daily allotment of dishonesty instead tends to involve lubricating lies ('I’m doing fine') and logistical lies ('I’ll be there soon') and charitable lies ('Of course that doesn’t make you look fat')." Only the most extreme ethic holds all untruths to be of equal weight, and a few Christian ethicists, such as Joseph Fletcher, go so far as to argue that sometimes a lie is the most loving thing to do. (As for the ninth commandment, it's frankly difficult for it to carry the weight of prohibiting every untruth: its immediate intention was to address a particular misuse of the legal system, and as interpreted by the New Testament, any statement that hurts others. It can't be used, as a few do, to defend blathering your version of the truth at everyone, such as telling someone she has an ugly hairstyle just because she does.)

But the internet can threaten even serviceable polite lies, such as "Sorry, I didn't see your email," when the receipt's time stamp shows otherwise, or "I was too busy to call you back" when your Facebook page pictures you lounging in your hammock with an iced lemonade. 

Could the argument be made that this erosion of privacy, whatever its other dangers, is a boon for honesty? "The network," says Garber, "can be its own kind of lie detector." This has less to do with God watching than our desire to be trusted by others: "We may lie sometimes, but we don't want to be seen as liars." Just ask Anthony Weiner what happens to a reputation when one's e-cheating becomes public.

At best the internet brings into high relief basic human inconsistency. None of us are capable of living all in one room all the time. The condemnation of political flip-flopping notwithstanding, a foolish consistency remains the hobgoblin of little minds, which is to say even the smartest and most moral of us are self-contradictory as we evolve and grow. Even without digging too deeply, our historical net presence shows how fundamentally dis-integrated even the best of us are.

Wealth Inequality and Charitable Giving

By Loren Seibold

Pew Research has just released a study that says that the recovery of the past couple of years has largely benefited the wealthiest 7%, while the lower 93% of Americans have seen net worth decline. Wealthier households hold their value in stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments that have rallied in value. But for the majority of Americans who have little or no investment in these markets—whose net worth is in their now-less-valuable family home—net worth has declined by 4%.

What will this mean for churches and the institutions associated with them? Most congregations rely exclusively on contributions, but many educational institutions are also heavily dependent upon gifts. Those who have in their constituency a concentration of these wealth holders will undoubtedly be in a better position to ride out the next few years.

That assumes that wealthy Christians are willing to contribute. Ken Stern writes in a recent Atlantic article that the wealthiest families give an average of 1.3% to charity, while the poorest give 3.2%. Stern suggests that “the personal drive to accumulate wealth may be inconsistent with the idea of communal support”, and he quotes Berkeley research psychologist Paul Piff that “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” The reason, he believes, is isolation: the wealthy are simply less aware than others of the needs around them. “Wealthy people who lived in homogeneously affluent areas—areas where more than 40 percent of households earned at least $200,000 a year—were less generous than comparably wealthy people who lived in more socioeconomically diverse surroundings.

The rich also contribute differently than the poor. “The poor” says Stern “tend to give to religious organizations and social-service charities, while the wealthy prefer to support colleges and universities, arts organizations, and museums.” So small churches and schools, especially those located in declining industrial and rural areas, may continue to decline, while universities and large congregations, especially those in wealthy suburbs that are most likely to have well-off alumni and members, might even thrive.

Given the increase in income inequality, that 1.3% can be massive. Charting the path ahead for ministry providers will require institutions to get the attention of those relatively isolated wealth-holders for less “sexy” projects than museums and self-named new college buildings—and that might not be easy.

Moral Consequences of Economic Decisions

The economy and the political agitation around the national debt has forced all Americans to make decisions. Who is paying attention to the moral consequences of those decisions?

If a state legislature votes to stop paying for certain kinds of hospital care and as a consequence respirators are turned off and a number of people die, are the lawmakers who voted that budget cut guilty of murder in God's eyes?

If I hire a man at $12 an hour and I know that in my community full-time employment at $12 an hour will not pay the rent on the least expensive apartment available and as a consequence the man sleeps in his car (which is old and in ill repair), leaves the windows rolled up because it is cold outside and dies from carbon monoxide poisoning, am I guilty of murder in God's eyes?

If the national Congress votes to cut funding for emergency food programs and as a consequence 10,000 babies die from malnutrition over the next year or two, are the politicians who voted for that budget cut guilty of murder in God's eyes? What if I voted for one of those legislators because he promised to keep my taxes down, do I share in that guilt?

Or does God give a free pass for anything that is necessary to balance the budget? Does God not require any moral accounting of the decisions that are necessary to protect the savings that I have, or keep taxes down or encourage job creation in our country and keep the economy going?

Maybe you are not troubled by these questions. Does God think about them? People of faith have always taught that He expects us to think about moral consequences. Is that an idea that we are now free to discard?

"I believe in a forgiving God."

This statement by a politician recently gives insight into the religious beliefs of most Americans. He campaigns for "traditional family values" but he carried on an extramarital affair while his wife was dying of cancer; something he has never publicly confessed or admitted to asking forgiveness for. Pressed about this hypocrisy recently, he said, "I believe in a forgiving God ..."

This is an essentially nonpartisan viewpoint. Most Americans believe that God is more forgiving of their favorite sins than He is of other people's favorite sins. Is it just me or has this attitude become more pronounced in recent decades? The sins for which a person has a weakness are seen as something that God easily forgives. The sins for which other people have a weakness are blown up as terrible, dangerous and things that God cannot easily forgive.

Isn't this precisely what Christ pointed out with His reprimand of those who are so focused on the splinter in the other person's eye that they cannot see the plank in their own eye? If so, how should we relate to all of the pious propaganda being dished out currently, much of it with strategic twists related to "culture war" and politics? Would Jesus take this seriously in terms as ethical teaching, or would He ignore it as nonsense?

Sociologically, this is another indicator of how shallow the faith and values of most Americans has become. There is a Christian religious veneer in American culture, but when you take a second look much of it is disconnected from the real teachings of Christ. One example of this is the fact that the majority of Americans believe that there is a Bible text which says, "God helps those who help themselves." Of course, that is really from Poor Richard's Almanac and states a viewpoint that God abhors, especially because it often takes the form of people "helping themselves" to what justly belongs to others or, in God's eyes, should be shared with those who are poorer, weaker or more marginalized.

 

The Demographics of 5-year-olds

It is a routine Census Bureau release during the week that schools start in many places across America. Why would major newspapers make it front page news? Because it is a harbinger of the American future. Just a little over half (53 percent) of these children are White. Nearly half are "minorities," and we are soon going to have find a different word since all ethnic groups will soon be minorities in the way demographers use that term. One in four are Hispanic. One in eight are Black. The Asian segment has increased by a quarter in the last decade and the multiethnic segment by a third. These children will graduate from high school in 2024 and Whites will be a minority in the adult America they will live in.

This is why you hear so much reactionary hysteria these days. This is why negative attitudes about immigration have become so widespread, despite the fact that 100% of White Americans are the descendants of immigrants, most of whom arrived here without legal papers. It is really about ethnicity, not economics or the law or any of the other propaganda terms. TV personality Glenn Beck is calling for a rally on the capital mall in Washington aimed at "restoring honor" to the country. Who was the last major politician to launch a movement with the same theme? Hint: It was during a depressed economy and a time when the nation in question had a lot of ethnic resentments. He eventually won election because too many people did not vote their conscience.

This ethnic transition is not going to be easy for America. No one can really predict how it will play out and what the unintended consequences of the political reactions will come to. It will be a real test of the values of those who think of themselves as people of faith, especially the followers of Jesus.