The Conflict Rephrased

The thrust of partisan enmity in this country, as far back as I can remember, has hinged broadly upon the divide between, on the one hand, “secularism” and the unfolding of scientific discovery--both in the fields of the physical and social sciences--and on the other hand “religion”, which is discussed cautiously and in public as something that is personal, something private, and something irrelevant and dwindling in its perceived backward-lookingness. Additionally, but implicitly, religion is regarded to be irrational, reactionary, fanatical--it is dangerous in its independent worldview.

This above breakdown is, in fact, a poorly drawn cartoon. The cause of discord is not in the least between Democrats and Republicans, the lines are not drawn between liberal progressives and constitutional conservatives, nor can the fuel for our strife be reduced to the secularists pitted against the religionists.

There are but two worldviews, as there are two views of man and God. One view takes shape in the Humanist creed--the other, the Christian faith. Both have spiritual dimensions. Both are (at present) non-falsifiable.

What lurks behind Humanism is much more complicated than a supposed fidelity to science. Christianity also, contrary to the way in which it is depicted in the media, is more formidable than some fairy tale. Each makes a bold claim: For the Humanist, man has matured to a point at which he is able to seize the crown of his own divinity, an exaltedness apart from God but over against His creation; for the Christian, God is ever his King of Glory, and man knows that his ultimate blessedness is hid with Him in Christ. For the Humanist, each blow to the Christian brings him one step closer to the imagined utopia of his making. For the Christian, every bruise incurred is in patient expectation of his King’s kingdom coming.

I would like to take a closer look at each worldview, beginning with the Ruler of Hostility’s religion: Humanism.

Light Reading Gone Dark

So I’ve not yet seen The Da Vinci Code. I recently obtained the DVD, but have yet to watch it. Originally, I put off seeing it because I understood it to be a “work of art” that sought to slander the Church by reviving every heresy—Gnostic, Arian, what have you—and presenting them as the truth for the sake of an (admittedly) gripping story of conspiracy and intrigue. Based on documents and doctrines so irrational and inconsistent that they failed to fool even our most ancient forefathers, the novel and the movie had self-confessed “spiritualists” and secular free thinkers giving the time of day to garbage rightly rejected over 1,600 years ago. Not that anyone actually understood the scope of the heretical beliefs touched upon by author Dan Brown—he would have needed to use flow charts to convey all that, a little out of place in a novel—but they were nonetheless eager to believe that the beliefs held in common by Christians were not to be believed. Added to everything, Mr. Brown’s assertion that his fictional story contained wholly accurate historical and theological information undermined the line between fact and fiction and made clear his venom for the real world Christian faith.

Not to go on at too great length about The Da Vinci Code, there are other popular works of fiction that have made assaults on simple truths, some more indirectly than others. While I never read any of the Harry Potter series, not being a fan of the fantasy genre, I recall that in 2002 the Catholic Church disapproved it as being unsuitable for children. I don’t know how their argument ran, but I would agree that there is a danger here. It isn’t that the books promote satanic witchcraft. I give kids credit for recognizing these far-out elements as pure fantasy, and I don’t see the emergence of any subculture dabbling in the black arts. Rather, I find the danger to lie in devaluation. Today, America’s youth is having its wonder, its amazement funneled away to outlets with no profitable end. Children and teens, so intelligent and passionate, are squandering their faculties and energies on petty entertainments that do not glorify God or seek to apprehend divine realities.

A second danger—the constant danger—relates to the intrusion upon these novels of humanist thinking. This is presaged in Harry Potter by such post-publication announcements as a prominent character’s homosexuality, but more fully realized in the latest series of books-turned-big-screen, The Golden Compass series. Harry Potter is tame by comparison to this next attempt to discredit the Church. These books portray the Church as an organization given to brainwashing, and they define dogma, in the abstract, as necessarily evil. Rather than recognize in systematic theology the hard-won confession and oft assailed attestation that Christ is Lord, they adopt an ahistoric absurdity and suggest that any doctrine that seems too hard to understand must in fact be a fanciful invention of man designed to mislead and oppress.

The writers and producers of the cinematic version of the series have muted the anti-Christian overtones, but I haven’t a clue why. If Hollywood really isn’t interested in broadcasting atheistic tirades to young children, why make the movie at all? Why attempt to merely filter out the profane if the message of the source material is so unabashedly objectionable? Forget the film altogether and let these books rot on the shelves. Since any children’s film’s financial viability depends upon its perceived uprightness, I don’t see the point in to trying to scrub clean this petrified lump of dung.

--------------------------------------------------
Christianity in the Media Recap 2: What would they have us believe?

• Reintroducing condemned heresies and seeding impieties into popular children’s literature is fair game; all’s good so long as it’s entertaining.
• The doctrines of the Church, developed over millennia to safeguard simple truths from attacks (such as these), are actually elaborate attempts to brainwash us all.

2% With a Wide Margin of Error

From viewing the blurb on my Yahoo homepage today, I see that Will Smith's blockbuster I Am Legend is enjoying the largest December box office opening ever--until next December, I'm sure. In the run up to the premiere, Smith was the focus of several interviews, among them an especially memorable one conducted by Access Hollywood.

In it, Smith came off as a well-spoken, intelligent actor in no way reminiscent of his self-titled Fresh Prince character from his youth. Following the recap of his illustrious career, AH got around to asking him about his personal life, delving into such incidentals as his high school memories, his relationship with his father, and--of all things--his views on Tom Cruise's always-scandalous devotion to Scientology.

Smith defended Cruise, who is a good friend of Smith's and an overall "great spirit." How heartwarming. He went on to appeal to man's right to determine his own beliefs, which, according to him, are all the more valid for being the more insane. Here's the central quote:

"How can I condemn someone for what they believe and I believe that God was born from a pregnant virgin?"

According to Will Smith, then, the criterion for faith is not, say, the revealed word of God, but rather the sheer absurdity of the premises upon which beliefs are built. He attempts to demean the integrity of his own admitted Christian faith in order to buoy the outlandish assertions of a cult in direct opposition to that faith.

But then, what is the content of Smith's own "Christian" belief? He gives us a brief peek into his background:

"I was introduced [to Scientology] by Tom and I’m a student of world religion. I was raised in a Baptist household, I went to a Catholic school, but the ideas of the Bible are 98 percent the same ideas of Scientology, 98 percent the same ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism."

Why, he's some sort of religious cosmopolitan, isn't he? And so profound. Obviously, he must know what he's talking about. Just look at his credentials. Who else but a true humanitarian and champion of tolerance could possibly recite such beautiful platitudes?

I'm especially impressed by his specificity. He sheds quite a bit of insight onto those vast and obscure "ideas of the Bible", doesn't he? It can be so hard to keep track of them all, but let's see what we can pull up to forefront of our wearied minds. Here's an idea:

"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." (Matthew 11:27)

Actually, wait, no, that's the wrong one. That's too specific, and it puts a crimp on Will's point. I guess the part of Christianity that has to do with Christ must fall under that 2%, huh?

--------------------------------------------------
Christianity in the Media Recap 1: What would they have us believe?

• All religions are one.
• Men should believe whatever suits them them best.
• Christianity is not significantly different from Scientology, Hinduism, or Buddhism.
• To criticize a belief system in opposition to Christianity is ignorant.
• Strange doctrines are valid since Christian beliefs are equally bizarre; or, conversely
• Both the beliefs of cults and the beliefs are Christianity are unbelievable.

The Bitter Joke

During the summer months, while watching the latest underwhelming attempt to find the Last Comic Standing, I witnessed a noteworthy stand-up routine. It wasn’t that it was particularly funny. (That hasn’t been the case since the reality show’s first season.) What caught my attention was that it attacked the Catholic Church, in particular, as well as Christian beliefs in general. I don’t use the word “attack” to designate some personal offense to my own over-sensitive ego. The comedic profession has always harvested material from widely recognizable figures, mundane observations, and current events that can then be half-heartedly teased and mulled over for humorous effect. The jabs are not especially judgmental or, if they are, they are delivered while the performer is in character, the intention being to point out the absurdity of such judgments. Acts that “attack” racial groups, for instance, must be heard in light of the fact that they (often) serve the purpose of exposing the ridiculousness of certain stereotypes.

It is sobering to realize that those that attack Christian—not religious in general, but purely Christian—subjects, do so with an altogether different motive. This brings me back to Last Comic on NBC. As the comic presented his Christian material, the audience laughed, as would be expected. But there was something venomous in the laughter. If it was too subtle to be recognized at first, it was confirmed by the cheering that followed after it. The assembled audience was validating the caricatured depiction of Christians, taking it as profound (rather than profane), and agreeing with the harsh words delivered against the faith.

If it can be granted that these funnymen professionals concoct their material to cater to the modern worldview of their audience, then it follows from that audience’s reaction that this comic had correctly gauged that the average individual harbors deep-rooted anti-Christian animosity. This in itself should come as a shock. At a sold-out, HBO-sponsored theater performance by Bill Mahr, one might come to expect such God-directed hate mongering and the wildly approving reaction of the throng. What is far more telling is that a similar reaction could be elicited from a randomly selected, diverse group of people come to witness an unknown comedian with no foreknowledge of the nature or the flavor of his comedy.

Popular conceptions of Christianity as an intolerant religion that has been made obsolete by modern science, and its adherents as uptight and irrelevant members of a dwindling sub-culture, have given today’s comedians license to treat them intolerantly in turn and to forego the implicit niceties afforded to the targeted groups of other “offensive” humor.

It is not my intent to make whining complaints on behalf of Christians treated unfashionably, but to draw attention to how the faith has been so easily and so widely misrepresented, and how something life-giving can be construed to be so contemptible, and how ready and eager the unbelievers are to agree with one another and to consort with every false assertion. It appears as though, even when overhearing some new slander against God not previously considered by them, they lend to it an immediate plausibly, if only because it is opposed to the faith that they mutually despise. And to that faith itself, they give not a moment’s consideration.

I’ve been vague with regard to the substance of the comedy that I’ve referred to here; I know that I have been short on examples. Watching this broadcast via television has given me occasion to take careful notes on future instances of how the media is endorsing the misrepresentation and degradation of Christian beliefs (I am not now concerned with the bandied-about term “values”, but specifically beliefs).

Lastly, I recall that I earlier referenced this comedian as launching his assault against Catholicism. While the routine began this way, it then went on to mock beliefs held sacred by all of orthodox Christendom. I feel that it is important, for we that may not be Catholics, not to dismiss criticisms of Catholicism as being somehow more deserved, since, as I strongly suspect, the ordinary unbeliever in dismissing Christian beliefs does not make denominational distinctions or, if he is aware of some doctrine peculiar to one denomination, when making his case he is apt to apply it to all of Christianity indiscriminately.

The Two Spheres

I had a tough time conveying my beliefs regarding the relationship between creationism and evolution earlier today. I was arguing for an approach to the debate that respected both theology and biology as separate and distinct disciplines.

I hold a largely literal interpretation of Scripture. However, I acknowledge that science, as an area of study, concerns itself with those things that are falsifiable and can be proven with respect to the laws of the physical universe. Therefore, I do not expect teachers of biology in academic settings to promote creation on equal footing with evolution for the sake of appeasing Christian taxpayers. It is not science’s obligation to pander to matters of faith.

Having cleared that up, I can now go on to state my belief in the literal interpretation of man’s formation out of the dust as described in the book of Genesis. To elucidate on how I could still make such a claim in light of the above, I will make an analogy to an event from another area of Scripture. When the Israelites broke free from their bondage to Egypt and set out for the land promised them by God, they were sustained by him with manna from heaven. Bread which rains from the sky is quite uncommon, as those who live in this modern age well know. A meteorologist might describe how such an occurrence as a “bread storm” is impossible, perhaps with a smile, like those of the friendly weathermen on the news. Significantly, devout and literalist Christians would also admit that this sort of thing does not happen every day. However, a Christian will affirm that bread rained down for the Israelites all the same, just as we read. And what is the Christian’s explanation for this? Proper faith dictates that a believer takes it as true, even though it clashes starkly with our senses and common perceptions. Manna, far from being explainable in scientific terms, was a miracle nonetheless. A miracle—something not dependent on the physical laws which govern the universe. God performs miracles freely, as he is not constrained in his work by the rules of the creation which he himself created. This is our belief.

Why has there been no meteorological debate on a par with the evolutionary debate? Scientists and Christians would certainly hold contradictory views on the subject. This is because a Christian is content to believe a miracle to be the exception to the general rule, while he otherwise subjects his understanding to the practical workings of geological science, which describe what we see day by day. This does not present a problem, for faith allows us to hold as true also that which is unseen.

What does this have to do with evolution? I propose that in dealing with evolution we are dealing with a similar scenario. Man’s direct creation by God’s hand is a miracle, and this truth should be accepted unreservedly, no matter how buried it becomes under the heaps of Neanderthal bones that are drudged up out of the earth. Why has evolution become such a hot topic while discussions of manna are safely closeted to Sunday school lectures? The difference lies in the practicality of miracles. The miracle of man’s creation, before the rise of Darwinian thought, seemed practical in lieu of an alternate explanation. The miracle of the manna, on the other hand, was never practical, not even in the time in which it was manifest. The evolutionary debate has been spurred on, then, I believe, by Christians unwilling to let creationism skip into the category of the unpractical. We must realize, always, that because something seems unpractical, in light of physical evidence, it does not bar us from a recourse to faith in miracles that overcomes any obstacle, moves any mountain, without any overt exertion of our own. So do not struggle to argue for creationism’s practicality; do not attempt to say that it is scientifically feasible—this is not necessary. Christians must know when to divorce themselves from scientific thought and reasoning. (I write this not to argue that we should remain ignorant of learning, but rather we should not say that such-and-such is impossible merely because science precludes it. All is possible with God.)

This is my belief. There are two spheres, those of science and religion. I can yet uphold a literal belief in creationism without denying the physical evidence for evolution or making an assault on science.