Think Christian Articles

Why church-affiliated Boy Scouts should be first to welcome gay members

2013-05-23T23:48:05Z

Posted on 05/23/13

The Boy Scouts voted today to drop their long-standing prohibition on gay members (gay adult leaders will still not be allowed). A lot of scout troops are sponsored by churches, many of which have taken stances on homosexuality. Apparently, for some churches, that stance will now include dropping their Scout affiliation.

Essentially, these churches are saying that if LGBTQ kids want to join scouts, they're not welcome. They're not welcome because the church doesn't want them in their troop. The kids aren't welcome because apparently the church thinks that homosexuality is a quality in a kid that disqualifies that child from participating in church activities.

I wonder what other qualities are disqualifying, especially according to the Bible?

Lying? That's a big one. And I'd like to see a show of hands of all people who can claim never to have lied as a kid. Anyone? Still waiting. Nope, I don't see that hand.

Rebelling against parents? Another major no-no. In fact, that one could have gotten you the death penalty in ancient Israel.

Idolatry? Show me a kid with an Xbox and I'll show you someone who is at risk for idolatry. Not good.

Gossip? Wow, do kids like to spread stories about each other, and it can ruin relationships.

So why are some churches drawing the line at homosexuality, barring the door and putting up the "not welcome" sign for gay youth?

They're scared.

But if these churches would keep their eyes on Jesus, as the Bible also commands, they would see Him hanging out with those who have been marginalized by society: the woman at the well; the woman who crashed the party to kiss His feet; the tax collectors and sinners of Matthew 9:10-13.

Jesus lived on the margins of society because that's where the people who need Him are. “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick,” He said. “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Drop the Boy Scouts because they allow gay members? The churches considering such action should instead be throwing a party and inviting them to come on in. Then all involved will see Jesus. He'll be walking alongside the other invitees.

Comments (10)

Glowing trees and the divine wisdom of species barriers

2013-05-23T08:41:41Z

Posted on 05/23/13

Turn into almost any suburban street after dark and streetlights cast globs of light every 250 feet or so. Now imagine the streetlights gone, but in their place light emanates from every tree on the block. Not twinkling Christmas lights or mere specks of radiance, but trees that literally glow - every leaf and twig emitting a soft, effusive glow.

That image came to mind while reading a recent article in the New York Times describing a project tinkering with the genetics of a tree to make it emit light. It’s a biotech novelty on a somewhat grander scale than aquarium fish that glow under black lighting.

Let’s admit the potential practicality: glowing trees could actually reduce energy costs. Yet there may be downsides to the plan. You can’t turn trees off. Point sources can be controlled in ways that diffuse sources can’t (your neighborhood astronomer will appreciate this). And would they engineer a variety of species? The city I live in recently lost over 10,000 ash trees to the emerald ash borer, transforming the town into something less than its name implies (Ann Arbor). The last thing we need is a monoculture of glowing trees in our cities.

But these issues are minor compared to one that really caught my attention: the project's participants. As the Times article notes, “[r]ather than the work of a corporation or an academic laboratory, it will be done by a small group of hobbyist scientists in one of the growing number of communal laboratories springing up around the nation as biotechnology becomes cheap enough to give rise to a do-it-yourself movement.”

Count me among those who are less than thrilled - no, downright chilled would be a better description - at this grassrooting of the bio-tech movement. Really, hobbyists conjuring up variations on species? This is a really bad idea. Genes are uncontrollable once they’re “out there.” Benign oddities like glowing trees are little different in the making from toxic or malevolent organisms like poisonous broccoli or an airborne Ebola virus.

The fact is we rely significantly on the divine wisdom found in species barriers. As Christians we believe that God crafted the creatures of this creation; Psalm 104 says, “in wisdom you made them all.” Respecting the divine wisdom in species genetics doesn’t mean foregoing all genetic technologies. It does mean treading oh-so-carefully and recognizing that genetic tinkering sends ripple effects through the created order. There has to be a deep sense of humility rather than a “that’s cool - look what we can do” mentality.

Consider this. A person allergic to nut proteins stays away from nuts, but doesn’t have to worry about other foods as long as they don’t contain nuts. Same with seafood allergies - stay away from shellfish and seafood. But with transgenesis - the term for transferring genes across species lines - that confidence in species separation is shattered.

In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved its first drug made from a pharm animal - a blood thinner called ATryn produced in the milk of a genetically-modified goat. In approving the application, the FDA assured the public that it is “confident” that no meat or milk products from genetically modified goats will enter the food supply. How can they give that assurance when, to all external appearances, a GM goat is identical to a normal goat?

The fact is, the U.S. has a notoriously bad (and oftentimes non-existent) system for reviewing genetic modification proposals. Three agencies - the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture - each have partial responsibilities, but if you map those responsibilities out you’ll see there are huge cracks into which crackpot projects can fall. Unlike Europe, where a single agency reviews all genetic modification proposals, in the U.S. the FDA covers animals for drugs, the EPA covers herbicides and pesticides and the USDA covers plant pests. When asked to review the project to produce a glowing tree, the USDA declined since they did not deem it a pest.

A glowing tree is whimsical and, in the right setting, it might even be beautiful. But what it portends is not. And without due regard for the dark dangers of the human heart, grassroots biotech should not be for the masses.

Comments (1)

Will we ever stop labeling bands Christian?

2013-05-22T06:12:30Z

Posted on 05/22/13

Did you know that the members of U2 are Christians and that they frequently explore issues of faith in their songs? Shocking, right? I know!

A recent BuzzFeed piece got way too many views with the irritating title “11 Bands You Might Not Realize Are Christian.” Author Matthew Perpetua seems to be trying to “out” people of faith in the music world by making over-reaching assumptions about the members’ beliefs based on lyric snippets and his own editorializations. For Perpetua, it seems the inclusion of any kind of Biblical imagery is reason enough to identify a band as “Christian.” In addition to listing U2 in the No. 1 spot, he includes Black Sabbath, Mumford and Sons, The Avett Brothers, Evanescence, Belle and Sebastian, Lenny Kravitz, Kings of Leon, Sufjan Stevens, The Civil Wars and the incredible Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, who just released an excellent new album, Spectre at the Feast, and successfully rocked Nashville this month.

Back in 2009, I wrote a piece for Christianity Today that suggested that all music was spiritual. Sure, some of it gets used for ignominious purposes, but the thing that makes music so powerful is the spiritual essence of it. It may be good or bad, true or false, but it’s all spiritual. Bono once said that the best music is either written about people running toward or away from God. T-Bone Burnett, who inspired me as a kid, once said that he could either write songs about the light or about what he sees as a result of the light. Glenn Kaiser rocked my world when he used blistering hard rock to simultaneously share the Gospel with the lost and to challenge the found to engage their pilgrimage with intensity and integrity. Reducing this wide spectrum of expressions down to a bucket labeled “Christian” is a way of dismissing it from the general culture on one hand, or uncritically endorsing it to a sub-culture on the other.

There are several specifically “Christian” uses of music, and I am a fan of them all when done properly. Music can be used sacramentally, as in worship. It can be used prophetically, as a challenge to the church or the world to change its ways. It can be used educationally, to help train people to memorize Scriptures or stories that will enhance their understanding of their faith and its implications. Sometimes music is used well in these purposes. Often it is not. It seems to me the lame/great ratio is about the same in the Christian world as it is in the Top 40.

But when songwriters who happen to be Christians participate in the larger cultural discussion with songs that address love, lust, fear, war, politics or the beach, must it be called “Christian music” and be sold in separate stores and played on separate radio stations? The prevailing desire to label and categorize that kind of music seems to be the result of two things: Christians who would rather be spoon-fed “safe” music than engage in critical thought or discernment of their own; and snarky pop-culture critics who were exposed to too many Carman videos as children and want to make sure their cool friends know what some artists secretly believe

I get that there is too much useless music in the world and that some adventurous and open-minded Christians may wish to discover new artists who are particularly thoughtful when it comes to wrangling with the implications of a life lived under the gaze of God. I supposed they might turn to certain articles, like BuzzFeed’s, in that pursuit. But if the discussion is designed to create an alternative to personal discernment and critical thought, or to endorse bad art because it is about Jesus, we have a problem.

Comments (5)

What pastors really think about science and human origins

2013-05-20T18:08:10Z

Posted on 05/20/13

What do today’s pastors think about science? What views do they hold on creation and evolution and how strongly do they hold them? How do origins issues impact their ministries?

These were just a few of the questions that motivated us at BioLogos to commission a survey of pastors on origins. In 2012, the Barna Group conducted 743 telephone interviews with pastors from across the United States, from churches big and small, and from all Christian denominations. This comprehensive, in-depth survey provides a fascinating analysis of views held by clergy today. Here are some highlights.

#1: Pastors hold a diversity of views on origins.

Overall, while a slight majority of the pastors surveyed fall under the label of Young Earth Creationism (54%), sizeable portions of clergy accept Progressive Creationism (15%) and Theistic Evolution (18%).

The numbers varied widely based on a number of factors, however. Pastors of mainline churches were most likely to accept Theistic Evolution, while non-mainline, charismatic and Southern Baptist pastors were overwhelmingly Young Earth Creationists. Pastors of larger churches were also more likely to accept Theistic Evolution.

#2: Most pastors think science and faith questions are important.

Regardless of their views, the majority of pastors surveyed feel that the church needs to look at how it handles issues of science. According to the survey, 72% of pastors with YEC views and 73% of pastors with TE views agree with the statement that “the Christian community needs to take a serious look at its understanding of science and human origins in order to maintain its witness in the world.”

Similarly, 66% of YEC pastors and 61% of both TE and Progressive Creation pastors agree that “younger adults today are more concerned than ever about whether faith and science are compatible.”

#3: Clergy think disagreements on science and faith harm our witness (but for different reasons).

Clergy across all three viewpoints feel that disagreements are harming the church’s outreach, but they differ in how they view that harm.

YEC pastors overwhelming agreed (85%) that “Christian disagreement on matters of creation and evolution is compromising our witness to the world.” However, a majority of TE pastors disagreed with the statement (63%).

Conversely, a majority of TE pastors (63%) agreed that “the church’s posture toward science prevents many non-Christians from accepting Christianity,” while a majority of YEC and Progressive Creation leaning pastors disagreed (59%).

#4: Pastors aren’t avoiding science.

The majority of pastors think that addressing issues of science for their congregations is an important part of their work. Of those surveyed, 72% felt that addressing science issues in the local community was somewhat (51%) or very (21%) urgent. When asked about science on a national and global level, even more pastors felt that addressing science issues is important (43% somewhat and 46% very).

The majority of clergy across all four viewpoints also agreed with this statement: “Just as Scripture should influence human interpretation of science, science should also inform our understanding of Scripture.” The numbers were highest for TE pastors and those who are uncertain (81% and 72%, respectively), though over half of YEC and PC pastors also agreed (52% and 65%, respectively).

Finally, although YEC’s are more reluctant than other pastors to say “science should inform understanding of Scripture," they strongly agree (84%) that “the Christian community needs a greater commitment to showing how Young Earth Creationism is consistent with science.”

#5: However, they are concerned about evolution for Biblical reasons.

Over half of pastors said they had “major concerns” about the idea that God used evolution. The main reasons for that concern were that the idea “undermines the authority of Scripture” (64%), “views portions of the Bible as non-literal, like Genesis” (62%), “raises doubts about a historical Adam and Eve” (61%) and “raises questions about how and when death and sin entered the world” (59%). However, 26% of pastors saw no concern with the idea that God used evolution.

#6: The majority of clergy accept parts of Scripture as symbolic.

Of the pastors surveyed, 60% felt that “some portions of the Bible are symbolic, but all that it teaches is authoritative.” Clergy whose views fall under theistic evolution and progressive creation were more likely to accept this statement (79% and 73% respectively), but a sizeable number of YEC pastors (40% among the core followers and 49% among those leaning towards YEC) also agreed with the statement.

#7: Clergy are concerned that changing their views on origins might compromise their ministry.

Over half of pastors (58%) who fell under the YEC category agreed that “if you publicly admitted your own doubts about human origins, you feel you would have a lot to lose in your ministry.” Pastors who were uncertain or who fell under the Theistic Evolution group were less concerned, with only 26% and 17% respectively agreeing with the statement.

What about your church? How does your pastor approach evolution and other scientific topics?

Comments (2)

Star Trek’s elusive utopia

2013-05-18T16:05:14Z

Posted on 05/18/13

There really shouldn’t be this much strife in the Star Trek universe.

From the early episodes, created by Gene Roddenberry in the 1960s, to Star Trek Into Darkness, the newest film in the franchise, the series has sold a world in which advanced technology, human intellect and a reliance on reason have resulted in unprecedented cooperation – an interstellar United Federation of Planets, no less. But why, then, does conflict still exist, be it in the form of savage Klingons or evil clones? Considering all the advances it celebrates, it’s something of an irony that the problems of Star Trek often mirror our own.

This is especially true with Star Trek Into Darkness, the second entry from director J.J. Abrams and the best film of the franchise (it’s the 12th overall). Loaded with exciting action, energized by a formidable villain and even bolstered by a few ideas, this is a real cinematic experience, not a talky TV show with a bigger budget.

The plot involves little utopia and much conflict. After renegade Federation officer John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) launches lethal attacks against non-military targets, Capt. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and his crew aboard the USS Enterprise are tasked with hunting Harrison down. Their orders are to kill on sight, a vengeful strategy that particularly troubles Kirk’s reason-bound science officer Spock (Zachary Quinto).

A homegrown terrorist? Authorized assassination? Quandaries over how to rightly pursue justice? Star Trek Into Darkness is timely, certainly. But the movie’s narrative is also indicative of a reality that someone with humanist and futurist tendencies, like Roddenberry, would have been reluctant to admit: that there’s something deeply wrong with the universe, something that neither human intellect nor improved technology will ever be able to fix.

Christians find hope and - most importantly – salvation elsewhere. In his slim but guiding volume, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, Albert M. Wolters describes a universe that was created good, fell into sin, was redeemed by Christ and is in the process of being restored through Him to its original goodness. “Creation in its entirety is ensnared in the throes of antinormativity and distortion, though it will one day be liberated,” he writes. We may be able to participate in this liberation through our Christlikeness, but in contrast to the hopes of the Star Trek universe, restoration is not something humankind – or even alienkind – can accomplish.

This may be why I’ve mostly found the Star Trek films to be dissatisfying. (It could also be that, with a few exceptions, they’re incredibly boring.) Dry space lectures on the supremacy of reason, they rarely worked, either as movies or worldviews. Despite the pictures’ hope for human improvement, dark forces always arose in opposition – be it in the form of Klingons or Cumberbatch’s terrorist. No matter how far they go or how boldly, the Star Trek films have been unable to find their utopia. That’s because it doesn’t exist in another world, but in the next.

Comments (5)

Bangladesh: The high cost of our low standards

2013-05-17T06:18:39Z

Posted on 05/17/13

Our usual reaction to everyday corruption - bribes, graft, payoffs, fixers, grease - is “so what?” For the pragmatic, everyday corruption is a cost of doing business, like the (possibly apocryphal) story of the New York contractor whose superintendent shows up for work with a roll of Benjamins to make the day go more smoothly.

For the people of Savar, Bangladesh, however, the consequences of corruption are decidedly non-trivial. As is the case in almost every fatal building collapse not caused by earthquake (and many that are), substandard construction is suspected in the tragedy in which 1,127 people died - one of the worst building-related disasters since the days of Samson. Extra floors and heavy equipment were added illegally to the building, which may have contributed to the collapse.

Who allowed this to happen? Everyone in Savar for whom corruption was the norm. This could include, but is not limited to, the owner of the factory, the builder of the building, the city officials whose job it is to oversee construction projects, even the various subcontractors who built the frame, the floors and the walls of the now-flattened factory. Not included on this list would be the workers, including the 1,227 now deceased, who could be forgiven for assuming that in a semi-developed country, one could go to work without fearing the building would come down around you.

Christians seem as surprised as anyone by these developments, though of course we should not be. Corruption is one of the core doctrines of the church, our fundamental problem that Christ came to solve. Our redemption through Christ rescues us from corruption metaphysically, but we then have to work to live out that redemption actually, in the real world, where bribes are still paid and small-time graft is still a problem. Yet we, like the rest of the world, are genuinely shocked when this everyday corruption bears the ill fruit of Savar. We should not be.

Neither should we be complacent, however, shrugging and saying, “Well, that’s just how broken the world is. Come, Lord Jesus.” As redeemed people, we are called to redeem, first ourselves, in how we choose to live in the world, and then within our sphere of influence, wherever that may be. So you don’t own a garment factory in Bangladesh? OK - do you own a garment that you bought for an amazingly good price at H&M, Tesco or Zara, some of the biggest customers of Bangladeshi fabricators? That is certainly within your sphere of influence. Do you pay your babysitter in cash? (OK, who doesn’t do that? I mean, come on.) What if your babysitter is a full time nanny or au pair? Still in cash?

And there you go. Every time you pay the nanny, or the lawn guy, or the plumber in cash, you are participating in everyday corruption. Every remodeling project done without a building permit - and I’ve done them - is part of the problem. And although the building didn’t collapse around you or me when we did it, I hope you can see that it’s all part of the same problem. It’s not a different problem in Bangladesh than it is anywhere else. There are degrees of corruption, sure, but it’s all the same cloth. You’re either helping to weave it, or helping to unravel it. Jesus wants us to be the unravelers.

You in?

Comments (4)

Jim Halpert’s model of male headship

2013-05-16T08:06:01Z

Posted on 05/16/13

The Office is well past its prime, but tonight’s series finale has longtime (and long-suffering) fans like me lamenting the end, even if the end may be a bit overdue. Although the show struggled in the wake of Steve Carell’s departure, this final season has been the best since Carell left the show.

One of the main storylines has been the marital struggles of Jim (John Krasinski) and Pam (Jenna Fischer), brought on largely by Jim’s pursuit of his dream job at a sports-marketing company in Philadelphia. Although still working part-time at Dunder Mifflin, Jim’s time and energy are focused at his other job. With only a couple of episodes to go, however, Jim decided to drop his Philadelphia job and return to full-time work as a paper salesman, thus reinvigorating his relationship with Pam. In watching these last few episodes unfold, I’ve become convinced that we should think more about what Jim Halpert can teach us.

I often cringe when I hear some Christians arguing that a married woman’s highest calling is her marriage and family, while often implicitly assuming that a married man’s highest calling is his career (because he’s the “breadwinner”). Maybe it really is impossible for women to have it all - to be a good wife and mother and also be a top professional in certain fields. But if so, we need to admit in all honesty that it’s equally impossible for men to have it all - to be a good husband and father and also be a top professional in certain fields. But for the most part, we’ve assumed that it’s acceptable for men to sacrifice marriage and family for career. Christian men need to stop making that assumption and count the cost of having the mindset of Christ.

Jim’s predicament also helps us think about reducing the idea of vocation to one’s employment. If our vocation, or calling, is to seek first the kingdom of God, it may be that we can do that best in a job that doesn’t really excite us and isn’t really “culture-making” in any robust sense. It may be that your work is simply making the best of a boring, not-very-fulfilling job. But if that job allows you to be fully present to your spouse and children (not to mention your church and neighborhood), then that job may be more in line with the kingdom of God than the most fulfilling, innovative, culture-making job that sucks up all your time and energy.

Jim is a perfect example of this. Since he’s turned his back on the job in Philadelphia, Jim is himself again: not only is his marriage better, but he’s someone who brings life, energy and care for co-workers into an office that really needs him. It wasn’t just that Pam wanted and needed the old Jim back; the whole office needed the old Jim back (not to mention that I wanted the old Jim back).

Jim’s decision might even give us a picture of what Biblical “headship” looks like. (I put “headship” in scare quotes to remind us that we often use that term based on cultural assumptions instead of the Biblical text.) When Paul actually describes what male headship is, he lists several elements: 1) love your wife as Christ loves the church 2) love your wife as your own body, which means 3) nourishing and cherishing your wife. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. By putting his marriage and his wife before his own career ambitions and desires, Jim gives us a glimpse of what real headship might actually look like and what it means to “submit to one another.” In this way, Jim gives a glimpse of the Christological truth that in giving our self away, we receive our true self. Nowhere is this more true and more difficult than within marriage.

Comments (5)

Admiration - and a word of caution - for Angelina Jolie

2013-05-15T14:21:30Z

Posted on 05/15/13

I thought I was long past being shocked by the beautiful Angelina Jolie. After all, the days of her showing up with vials of blood around her neck or making out with her brother on stage are long past. And certainly I’ve become used to her radical morph from femme fatale to world-class humanitarian and hands-on mother of six – all without skipping a beat in her career as an actor and director.

And yet, she managed to shock me still. I imagine she shocked most of us who woke up yesterday to read her eloquent and heart-felt Op-Ed in the New York Times, in which she divulged her recent double mastectomy and her reasons for doing it.

According to Jolie, she discovered that she carried the BRCA1 gene, which, she says, “sharply increases my risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.”

In fact, according to Jolie, her doctors assessed her chance of getting breast cancer at 87% and ovarian cancer at 50%.

Although she had not been diagnosed, Jolie underwent this radical and voluntary procedure, she writes, because she knows the pain of watching her own mother wrestle with and then succumb to cancer and her children had started to worry about Jolie’s prospects.

Like any good and decent parent, Jolie wanted to be able to tell her kids, “Don’t worry,” and mean it. So, this most beautiful woman and admired woman, this Hollywood star whose fame and fortune is built as much on her talent as it is on her physique, shocked us once again by removing precious body parts so her children wouldn’t have reason to worry and wouldn’t face the risk of losing their mother.

In so many ways, this act shimmers with God’s very image, with His sacrificial love, with the breaking of one body out of love for another. It’s humbling and awe-inspiring all at once.

And in many ways, I hear Jesus’ words echo behind Jolie’s decision: “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away…”

While Jesus was not talking about double mastectomies and while clearly the breast cancer gene is not “stumbling” and while this verse ought not be taken quite so literally - still. The spirit of Jesus’ words and the spirit of Jolie’s decision both put a love of others above one’s love of body. And that’s a wonderful thing.

For these reasons, Jolie’s decision was a lovely and brave act. One I imagine many women in the same situation (and of the same means) would consider, if not undertake.

And yet, in this, there’s a piece, a concern, that I cannot shake - something that isn’t unique to Jolie by any stretch. It’s the belief most of us hold that if we just take cautionary measures, we can sidestep the sufferings or sickness or struggles of life.

“Life comes with many challenges,” Jolie writes. “The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of.”

And again, I hear Jesus’ words echo. This time, with a very different conclusion. “In this world, you will have trouble,” Jesus says in John 16:33. “But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

Jesus tells us to take heart, not take control. And yet, taking control is exactly what most of want to do in the face of hard news. Christians ought to remember that while we should be cautious - wearing our seatbelts, eating our broccoli, looking both ways, removing our breasts - the most dangerous thing we can ever do is to believe that we control the outcome, that our destiny is totally in our hands, that our time on this planet is ours to regulate.

It’s a troubling paradox in this world, of our faith: this idea that we should live wisely and yet remember that we control so little. And one I’m not sure how best to handle. Yet we are called to live into this paradox. And to remember that even if and when troubles come after every precaution, Jesus has still overcome. All of life’s troubles, for all of us.

Comments (1)

Wait - now money can buy happiness?

2013-05-15T06:18:48Z

Posted on 05/15/13

What is the relationship between money and happiness? A recent piece in The Atlantic highlighted research contradicting scholarly consensus holding that after a certain point of material prosperity, there is a corresponding decline or flattening in the increase of happiness. The findings from the Brookings Institute - “Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?” by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers - test the accepted scholarly wisdom and “find no evidence of a satiation point” beyond which increases in material wealth and happiness are not linked.

For Christians, some clarifications are in order before we can decide what the implications of such findings for our view of material prosperity ought to be. First, these and other studies examine happiness as defined as “subjective well-being.” This amounts, in essence, to individuals assessing their own subjective sense of “well-being,” sometimes on something as basic as a scale of 1 to 10. This means that while people generally tend to count the same kinds of things as good and weigh the same kinds of experiences as enjoyable, there is a baseline of subjectivity that is unavoidable in such research. A person’s sense of “subjective well-being” is highly dependent upon his or her valuations of various realities. These, in turn, are highly variable depending on a person’s environment, cultural context, moral formation, spiritual sensibility and myriad other factors.

A corollary to this is that there is no necessary connection between the “subjective well-being” that such social-science research studies and what we might call “objective well-being.” The difference can be described as the difference between what feels good and what is good. Sometimes these align, but given our fallen nature and our tendency to make errors of judgment as well as of volition, they are often at odds.

One implication that is often drawn from research like this is that there are strong utilitarian reasons for the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, whether within a nation or on a global scale. One problem for such a facile conclusion, however, is that not all wealth is created equal. As Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, has concluded, there is a difference between the kinds of satisfaction that people get from income or wealth that is viewed as earned or merited and that which isn’t. So those proposing connections between money and happiness need to dig a bit deeper and ask questions about what kind of money is being discussed.

But we also need to dig deeper and talk about what kind of happiness is important. Christians cannot simply rest easy with measures of subjective well-being that pass for happiness without making connections to deeper realities that have more to do with conceptions of joy. “What is the chief end of man?” asks the Westminster Shorter Catechism. “To glorify God and enjoy him forever,” comes the reply. The significance of subjective measures of well-being for Christians is that they must be brought into alignment with God’s measures of objective well-being. And on God’s scale of measures, He’s tops.

This doesn’t mean that human beings aren’t called to seek happiness. But we are called to do so in a particular way and in appropriate response to the realities of God and the created order. This means, in part, that we value material prosperity as a good gift from the hand of God, but that we don’t confuse the acquisition of wealth as a measure of our objective well-being. As Jesus put it, “life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

Comments (1)

Shavuot and the Christian significance of Jewish holidays

2013-05-14T06:40:54Z

Posted on 05/14/13

I’m not entirely Jewish, but my Twitter rabbi is. I was speaking with her on the phone about Shavuot, the Jewish Feast of Weeks that this year runs from May 14 to 16.

What’s a Twitter rabbi and why do I have one? Well, a Twitter rabbi is exactly what she sounds like. As for my interests in Judaism, most of my closest friends are devout Jews and I’ve spent much of my life lighting candles with them on Shabbat, discussing the Talmud with them, sharing Kiddush with them and eating too many carbs with them. Most of my theological education has been in Judaism too, so it’s fair to say my interests in Judaism go far beyond those of many other Christians.

So what is Shavuot? Along with Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, Shavuot is one of three Shalosh Regalim, or pilgrimage festivals, during which all Jews were to report to the Temple in Jerusalem to present offerings to God. Shavuot is directly connected to Passover. On the second day of Passover, an omer of grain was to be offered in the Temple, thus officially beginning the Sefirat HaOmer (the counting of the omer). This counting lasts for 49 days or seven weeks and culminates in the festival that commemorates the birth of Israel. On Passover, the Israelites were given freedom from Pharaoh; on Shavuot, they were given the Torah.

Growing up in a Pentecostal tradition, I was taught to hate legalism. We believed that we were living under grace, which was antithetical to the law under which the Jews lived. This belief was reinforced by some of my seminary education, which helped solidify the Lutheran binary I set up between law and grace.

But the more I studied and participated in Judaism, the more aware I became of this question: What if the law of Moses is the grace of God?

One of the great prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures looks forward to the day when God writes His law on the hearts of His people. After this prophesy is given, Jeremiah records the following words of the Lord: “And I will be their God, and they will be My people.” Contrary to what I grew up learning, law and relationship with God go hand in hand; they aren’t opposed to each other, as some of us misinterpret Luther to be saying.

Several times in Proverbs and Deuteronomy, Israel is charged to bind God’s words within their bodies and hearts and souls. The word “religion” actually comes from a Latin root meaning “to bind fast.” In its purest form, religion is what happens when we bind together with God in union and service and love. I’ve heard from some Christian friends that Jesus wants to save us from religion, but I understand Jesus to be teaching us how to bind ourselves to God and to our neighbors. When we consider the rich imagery of binding the Torah upon our hearts, the hip axiom “spiritual but not religious” seems to ring a bit hollow.

There’s a beautiful Jewish tradition dating back to the 12th century. On a child’s first day of school, she would be taught to repeat every letter of the alef-bet after the rabbi reads them from a slate. This slate would then be covered in honey and the child would be asked to lick the golden sweetness from the Hebrew letters she just learned. In this way, Jewish people teach their children the truth of Psalm 119: “How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!”

According to this tradition, the child’s first day of school would be on the holiday of Shavuot, since that is when God first gave His people Torah. Or, understood in a different way, that is when He gave Torah to a group of desert wanderers, thereby choosing them to be His special people.

On Shavuot, we meditate on the Torah and on the merciful God who reveals Himself to people who aren’t really looking for Him in the first place. On Shavuot, we remember that the commandments are acts of grace, intended to remind us that God has called us to holiness and obedience. On Shavuot, we remind ourselves that the law of God sets us free - by binding us to Him, to Christ and to each other.

Comments (1)

Mad Men, Rotten Ralph and unrepentant characters

2013-05-13T17:30:14Z

Posted on 05/13/13

It was hard enough explaining why Christians should watch Mad Men on Moody Radio. I also had to justify it to my 7-year-old.

I had been invited on Moody’s “Up for Debate” program to take the pro-Mad Men side (you can hear the conversation here). Afterwards, my daughter wanted to know what I said. Fumbling about, trying to suggest that stories about characters who behave badly can still be edifying, I grasped onto Rotten Ralph, a 1976 picture book we had read together a few nights earlier. I’m not sure if I made any sense to my kid, but I had a sudden, pop-culture epiphany: Mad Men is pretty much the Rotten Ralph narrative, told over and over and over.

If you’re unfamiliar with the book, written by Jack Gantos and illustrated by Nicole Rubel, here is the publisher’s synopsis: “Ralph, a very, very nasty cat, finally sees the error of his ways - or does he?” (There is a preview available via Google Books, but Rubel’s erratic drawings alone make it well worth the purchase.)

So obviously Ralph is advertising executive Don Draper (Jon Hamm), Mad Men’s lying, selfish, covetous antihero, who is occasionally punished for his disastrous indulgences but never quite reforms. I see Sarah – Ralph’s young owner, disappointed with Ralph but always defending him to her disapproving parents – as Peggy (Elisabeth Moss), Don’s copywriter protégé. Surely series creator Matthew Weiner has leaned on Gantos’ last line to craft each season’s finale thus far: “Ralph decided never to be rotten again … except for sometimes when Mother cooked lobster for dinner.”

Those of you familiar with Rotten Ralph, help me out. What Mad Men character would be Sarah’s father, who finds Ralph “sitting in his favorite chair, wearing his slippers and blowing soap bubbles through his pipe?” How about Mother, who never says anything but is “very unhappy” when Ralph chases her favorite birds? And what of the question that started all this? Should Christians be watching Mad Men in the first place?

Comments (4)

Seeing unseen things

2013-05-12T07:53:12Z

Posted on 05/12/13

Scientists are in the business of seeing unseen things.

I’ve noticed that whenever I learn about the discovery of something that’s never been seen or known before, I feel a sense of epiphany and elation - an instinctive, illumining kind of joy. It makes me think that I’m made to see unseen things.

A couple of months ago a friend sent me a link to a fascinating video introducing new technology being developed by a group of scientists at MIT (you can watch the video below). They’ve come up with recording software that amplifies slight changes in color and movement, right down to the level of a pixel. Their discovery makes visible things that were formerly invisible. Subtle eye movements are clearly seen. A pulse is revealed on a baby’s face.

“There’s a big world of small motions out there,” says one researcher. I couldn’t agree more.

Watching the clip, I realized that the Holy Spirit amplifies reality so that we can see what's really happening: God's imperceptible movements, behind the scenes, made visible, a beating heart just below the surface, the Spirit’s subtle color variations spread across the face of the cosmos.

This new technology made me think of how the Bible’s prophets were able to perceive reality beneath and beyond appearances. Jesus often amplified the nature of the ordinary, proclaiming unseen kingdom truths as He saw them in seeds, grapevines and shrewd managers. Surely He had an amplified view of reality - and calls us to have the same.

Which makes me wonder if MIT’s new way of seeing can help us to that end.

The Holy Spirit amplifies reality so that we can see what's really happening: God's imperceptible movements, behind the scenes, a beating heart just below the surface.

I guess they’ve already done that by showing us that there’s more to reality than meets the eye. What else can be revealed through this idea of amplification? Is there a spiritual correlative to this technological innovation, a way for us to see beyond the surface?

I think it begins with the understanding that we are made in the image of a God who sees and notices everything - with perfect clarity. God doesn’t miss a thing.

I also think that humanity collectively images this all-seeing God, each person with their own specialized area (pixel) of amplification. Designers and artists image their Creator’s eye via an amplified sense of visual aesthetic. Accountants and engineers reflect God’s rational mind through their magnified sense of the empirical. Athletes and dancers are physically conscious of the subtlest movement, imaging an incarnate God who watches every step. The best counselors and sociologists are interpersonally aware right down to the last relational pixel, imaging their triune, inter-relating God.

We glimpse the fullness of our all-seeing God when we observe the breadth and diversity of humanity. Those with amplified sensitivities in any given sphere inspire us and magnify that particular facet of our Maker’s nature. In a way, they elicit the same kind of seeing-something-unseen epiphany that scientists do.

It seems God spreads sensory amplification around, leaving us dependent on others for sight. Which offers another insight. Jesus, the apostle Paul writes, is the image of the unseen God. He’s the icon through which we look to see God. The one through whom we receive the eye, ear, heart, soul and mind-amplifying Spirit.

“Once we amplify it and show what’s there, there’s a whole new world - all sorts of things you can look at,” the MIT scientist says.

We’ve all experienced the new take on reality that comes from watching something in slow motion. But what these MIT programmers have done is amplify reality in real time. That, to me, seems a lot more in line with the kind of seeing we’ll possess on the new earth - fully and completely seeing while living our magnified human lives.

The universe has a pulse, and we are meant to see it.

Comments (4)

Children of atom, children of Eve

2013-05-10T17:47:03Z

Posted on 05/10/13

Are you smarter than the average American, at least when it comes to science and religion?

Following separate surveys in recent years on those two topics, the Pew Research Center has made quiz versions available online for the public. Now you can weigh your own knowledge on science and religion against those who were first polled.

Looking back at the results of the original surveys, the results were grim. The report on the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey showed atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions. To be clear, it’s not that they run so fast. It was a slow race. On average, Americans correctly answered only 16 out of 32 religious knowledge questions. The report on the Public’s Knowledge of Science and Technology also shows some tough results. Only 58% surveyed knew global warming was related to carbon dioxide.

What went wrong?

Apathy this widespread, this basic, is more than education failure. It’s about broken trust. Epistemology, they say, is how you go about knowing something such that you trust the results of the knowing process. We have a crisis of epistemology, which is really a crisis of trust.

The decline of religion in North America is a well-worn story by now, even if the secularization thesis hasn’t entirely delivered on itself. But disenchantment with the religious is certainly not in question, a reactionary secularism having taken its toll in a country (pointedly not a globe) where religious knowledge is increasingly characterized by curiosity and confusion. Science, on the other hand, overawed the human psyche for much of the 20th century, but gradually, incrementally, its abuses and powers provoked more fear than awe: atom bombs, killer drones, corporate pillaging. The shift from science-fiction utopianism to dystopia has been subtle but sure: gone are predictive feats of psychohistory or federations of solidarity. Here, instead, are the sins of our parents, a ledger to be balanced, a trek into darkness.

Science and religion have created us, and for better or worse, like bickering parents, their tensions and their infections are manifest in us. Religion promised solidarity and peace, but it divided and polarized. Science promised progress and enlightenment, but it built systems of mass destruction, of terrible powers that bruised our imaginations and scorched our planet.

But justified or not, betrayal and its reactionary criticisms cannot gain a truer understanding of the world. Totalized criticism, says Oliver O’Donovan, is the modern form of intellectual innocence, the apex of adolescence, but not a happy apex sadly, because by elevating suspicion to the dignity of a philosophical principle it destroys trust and makes learning impossible.

It is said that maturity in relation to our parents consists in going beyond a belief in their omniscience and a disdain for their weakness. Increasingly, it seems, Americans are choosing - or having chosen for them - the ironic detachment of disgruntled children, trading off a limited inheritance, casually acknowledged, if that. Some of what science and religion taught us was important, but we try not to act too impressed. We’ll just be disappointed again, so we no longer trust. And like parents who rehearse their mistakes, I’ll bet those deeply engaged in both science and religion fret. Because failing a quiz here and there on whether helium causes global warming may not kill you - but then again, it just might.

Comments (4)

Tim Lambesis and the limits of labels

2013-05-08T20:20:04Z

Posted on 05/08/13

A tragedy has occurred and people are reeling. Others are basking – even gloating – about another public Christian who has seemingly fallen from grace. Tim Lambesis, the affable, charismatic and thoughtful front-man for the metal band As I Lay Dying, has been arrested for allegedly attempting to pay a hit-man to assassinate his estranged wife. Fans are shocked and confused while detractors - and in the metal world there are many - are loving every minute.

The media’s insistence on identifying Lambesis as a “Christian lead singer” or labeling As I Lay Dying as a Christian metal band may reveal the glee so many in that world have when any opportunity to discredit Christianity presents itself. Yet it is true that Lambesis and his mates have openly shared their Christian faith and have been an inspiration and source of hope to countless young people. Accurately labeled or not, this is a punch in the gut for fans. Many are left wondering what to think, how to respond. No, As I Lay Dying were not usually swimming in the deep end of the theological pool, but Lambesis’ lyrics, stage banter and online commentary were encouraging, humorous and bold. He wasn’t a preacher, but neither was he shy about sharing his faith.

The early online aftermath of this news seems to fall along a few fairly predictable lines. Some non-believers use this as a case-in-point to call into question the entire concept of the Bible, the relevance of faith or even the goodness of God (if He exists). Fans and other Christians seem to be assuming that Lambesis has either fallen from his faith or was never really a believer in the first place. But what if this is much more complicated than that? How might mental illness, loneliness, a lack of accountability or other underlying issues have played into this mess?

I’ve met Lambesis several times. He was always a generous, gentle and very funny guy to be around. He struck me as someone who was genuinely concerned about his fans and was eager to be someone they could look up to. He never took himself too seriously. While he never attempted to market As I Lay Dying as a Christian band, he was also never ashamed to confess that he was a believer. It seemed that his and his wife’s faith were a large part of their motivation to adopt three children from Ethiopia over the last couple of years. Thus this news comes as an incredible shock. How could this happen? What has to happen in a person’s mind to take them to this place?

Nothing else is known - and Lambesis certainly has not yet been convicted of a crime - but something has definitely gone wrong. How are fans and other people of faith to respond to something like this?

Pray. Pray for Lambesis, his family and for all of the law-enforcement and court personnel involved. Pray for truth to be known, for healing to take place and for mercy and grace. Thank God for the sharp detectives who may have saved lives in this situation.
Resist the temptation to defend sin or to play the judge.
Reflect. According to Jesus even the thought of murder is as sinful as the act. Where is there murder in your heart?
Make sure that you are surrounded by truth-telling people who know you well enough to speak into your life long before you would do anything hurtful to yourself or others. This life is all about community. We need each other.

Other than that I’m open to suggestions. I’m heartbroken for Lambesis and his family, as well as the other members of As I Lay Dying who are no doubt experiencing intense pain and confusion. There are no easy answers here. It’s an insult to suggest that there are.

Comments (2)

Why big data has nothing on God’s omnipotence

2013-05-08T07:58:07Z

Posted on 05/08/13

I’ve been thinking a lot about what we can do with data lately, and also its limits. A recent article at The Verge describes how the extensive amount of surveillance information about the Boston Marathon did not help as much as one would think in preventing the tragic attack that occurred there. Despite several CCTV cameras, hundreds of spectators taking photos of the finish line and law enforcement nearby, identifying the suspects took several days. Meanwhile, old-fashioned eyewitness testimony from citizens, like victim Jeff Bauman, was crucial. As the Verge article details, the sheer preponderance of data might have hindered the investigation as much as it helped, creating a greater haystack in which to find the relevant needles. In addition, the large amount of publicly available data led redditors and journalists at publications like the New York Post to suspect and draw attention to innocent civilians.

Certainly, in the case of unexpected terrorism, problems with the gap between the data we can access and our ability to filter it are understandable. But even in marketing, a field that has found numerous applications for the massive amounts of data available to them, guesswork is still a factor. Atlantic writer Alexis Madrigal was stunned when he and his wife received a baby catalog before they told anybody they were expecting. Madrigal set out to find out how big data nailed them so well and found out it was a lucky guess, based on gifts they purchased for nieces and nephews.

These mysterious data successes (or accidental successes) are easy to see as a kind of Big Brother future, where technology can track your every move and report back to … someone. But we can also see the cracks in the system when we notice things like off-the-wall advertisements on Facebook, despite the years of personal data the company has. (Recently an advertisement told me I could finish my bachelors online, even though my Facebook profile notes that I’ve been done for eight years.) Figuring out what data about whom is relevant – and to what ends - is a pretty difficult task, made harder by the fact that humans tend to behave unpredictably. A friend who works in social research likes to make a distinction between data, information, knowledge and wisdom – by degree of difficulty to attain.

These stories remind me that even though companies and governments are doing amazing/terrifying things with data, it’s at best imperfect. The algorithms and programs they use to filter and respond to data are at least as fallible as the human beings who designed them. This came to mind when I was recently re-reading the word of God to Samuel when he was anointing a king of Israel: “The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” Over and over in the Bible, God knows just the right piece of information and reveals it at just the right time. God chooses the right - if unlikely - people to do His will in the world. That’s perfect wisdom.

Don’t get me wrong: Christians (and others) are right to pay attention to the ways that governments and corporations gather data and use that information. But we can also see its complexity and failures as evidence of the amazing omnipotence of our God - who doesn’t make errors and who knows right where to find us, even inside a great fish or the depths of hell.

Comments (2)