Blog Archives

Liberation in White and Black

10/28/2010

In 1998, I first walked through the doors of The Church of the Advocate (Episcopal), in North Philadelphia and found myself facing a mural that illustrates Exodus 12:29, “The Lord smote the first born of Egypt…(KJV).” At the time, I was living and working in contexts where I was frequently the only White person present and I considered myself quite comfortable. When I saw the painting of a fierce Black man in broken shackles driving a dagger towards the throat of a ghastly White face, I felt unsafe. I did not want to be identified with that White face by anyone who might identify with the Black liberator. White guilt and fear die hard sometimes. However, I and the friend who had brought me there were the only ones in the vast space and I was both too enthralled and too proud to jump back in the car and leave. As I learned more about the way that the other thirteen murals connected biblical narrative with the story of African American history (trans-Atlantic slave trade, the suffering of plantation slavery, the abolition movement, segregation, civil rights, Black Nationalism, urban riots) I became more fascinated, but it was years before I returned and began to understand the historical and political context of the Episcopal Church or Philadelphia with regard to race and art.

In the meantime, while taking a walk in Valley Forge Park in the Philadelphia suburbs, I happened upon Washington Memorial Chapel (also Episcopal) and entered. It was initially just as disturbing for me, but in a different way. The stained glass and carvings of the church told stories populated with far more uniformed White men with muskets and bayonets than biblical figures in robes. The stories of English Protestantism, colonial North America and the Revolutionary founding of the United States (by George Washington in particular) superseded the stories I expected to find visualized in Christian churches. This time my trans-national Christian multiculturalism and pacifism were offended by what appeared to me to be militaristic White nationalism in the place of worship.

Shortly thereafter, the Church of the Advocate came back to mind and I realized that these places were in a sense having a sort of visual conversation, or perhaps an iconomachy (image war) about the meaning of the Christian faith, the Bible, America and freedom or liberation.

1 Comment

Ben Stein v. Bill Maher (indirectly)

10/27/2010

0 Comments

Beth and I watched 2 movies this weekend. On Friday night we watched Religulous, with comedian Bill Maher. Maher is an atheist, raised Catholic but has a Jewish mother. The goal of the movie is to show how religion (or religious beliefs) are ridiculous and dangerous. I think most religious people would find it (and Maher) very offensive for his language and sexual references but anyone might be offended by Maher's total lack of respect for many people he interviewed. This doesn't mean it isn't also pretty funny.

On Saturday night we watched EXPELLED, with comedian Ben Stein, who is a Jewish theist (I don't know if he is "practicing" or not). The goal of this movie is to show how atheistic Darwinism has squelched free inquiry and operates today from a premise about the origin of life that is unprovable. I think most theists will want to cheer.

Neither movie attempts to be unbiased, but here is one fascinating aspect. Both men relate passionately to the suffering of the Holocaust and each places the primary blame on the other's side. So, Maher says it was a religious atrocity, or at least that Christians fostered antisemitism and religious believers were the ones committing the majority of atrocious acts. Stein says that atheistic Darwinism (giving rise to eugenics) was the underlying and driving theoretical basis of the Holocaust.
Of course, it doesn't have to be an either/or. Christian eugenicists were considered quite "progressive" even in the United States in the early decades of the 20th century. What's interesting is the way their allegiances and goals cause each comic to absolve the "contribution" of his constituents (theists/Darwinists). Interesting and totally "natural."

0 Comments

unChristian Biblical Worldview Part 3 - Youth For Truth?

10/26/2010

0 Comments

In my first post, I gave an overview of two pieces of Barna Group research ("Biblical Worldview"/BWV and the perceptions of non-Christian). Here, I would like to highlight one philosophical (the nature of "truth") and one demographic factor (the generation gap).

In David Kinnaman's excellent presentation for Messiah College's 2010 Next Generation Symposium, he stated that 3% of 18-29 year olds and 9% of 30+ year olds have a BWV, while Barna reports that less than .05% of adults 16-24 years old have a BWV. On one hand, this doesn't suprise me. In my informal survey of 70 undergraduate students at Messiah College (a private Christian institution), only 7 had read the entire Bible. How could the general population be expected to have anyone's sort of Biblical Worldview? However, I can't help return to some even more basic considerations.

First, the BWV that Barna went looking for insisted on agreement with (at least) 2 propositions that younger adults would be likely to resist affirming: the existence of absolute moral truth and the accuracy of the Bible in all that it teaches. Let it be noted that only 34% of the population and 46% of all of Barna's "born-again Christians" agreed on the former (absolute moral truth). I suspect that in all cases, this has more to do with epistemological humility (our capacity to discern absolute moral truth) and awareness of moral complexity (is it wrong to lie/kill/steal to save a life?) than complete moral relativism. On the latter item (Biblical accuracy in all it teaches), I suspect that "accurate" is the wrong word here on several levels:

First, most young adults are probably more versed in the "Scopes Trial" inquisition of William Jennings Bryan that clearly calls "accuracy" into question. Even Bryan could not uphold complete "accuracy."

Second, is "accurate" the right word to describe the imperative to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or "love your neighbor as yourself"? It might be quite easy to affirm the rich "truth" of these statements, but "accurate"? Are the Psalms and Proverbs "accurate"? Is it accurate to say that blessing will fall upon those who would take the child of a Babylonian and dash it against a rock (Ps. 137)?  Still, this verse communicates the "true" rage of the exiles in brutal poetry.  The survey could not get at such nuances, but that is the problem with surveys and perhaps surveyors. The other day, my son was doing an online learning exercise when I overheard the computer instruct him that "a fact is something that is true." It is the classic Modernist flaw to turn this around to say that "only those things which are facts (ie. accurate) are 'true.'"  The BWV survey falls into this trap, as demonstrated by Barna's book, Think Like Jesus.  This fact/truth equivalency is a more fundamental element of Barna's own worldview than any of the items on the Barna BWV list. It is common sense to many (southern White Protestant?) older adults and it is not for many younger adults.  David K. Naugle's Worldview: The History of a Concept points out that any definition of "worldview" is actually dependent upon the pre-existing worldview of the person who constructs the definition. I challenged the selection of BWV items in the last post.  Here, I want to challenge the prioritization of worldview itself:

"Worldview" as a crucial category and concept goes back to Kant (1724-1804), among Christians to James Dorr and Abraham Kuyper (c. 1840-1920) and among American evangelicals only to late-20th century leaders Francis Schaeffer and Chuck Colson. This is a new phenomenon and I have used the language of worldview frequently myself and often found it helpful. Though Tertullian (160-225) asked "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?" many early Christians freely defined Christianity as a philosophy. Others have been quite comfortable with their "religion," but today many evangelicals want to define themselves as "followers of Jesus" and comment that, "Christianity isn't really a "religion," it's a 'relationship.'"  Is it a worldview? Is it helpful for evangelicals to think about increasing the percentage of people (or Christians) who ascribe to the Barna BWV?

Barna defines "worldview" as "the product of all the information, ideas and experiences you absorb to form the values, morals and beliefs that you possess (Think Like Jesus p.19)." If this is the case, then it is massively naive to insist that there could ever BE a desirable static worldview shaped by the Bible, since the Bible can only ever be one element (even if it is the most significant element) in one's worldview. Everyone who opens the Bible and everyone opens themselves TO the Bible, does so with a culturally influenced WV already in place. For instance: The Bible by itself will NOT provide anyone with the fact/truth equivalency assumed by Barna, and perhaps by polling in general.

At Messiah College, Kinnaman pointed out that 57% of 18-29 year olds had a commitment to Jesus, with no BWV as did 66% of 30+ year olds. After doing a tiny bit of demographic research and rudimentary math, I can say that without BWV, the ratio of 18-29 y.o-s. commited to Jesus compared to 30+y.o-s. commited to Jesus was about 1 to 4.  The ratio of these age-groups with BWV was about 1 to 11.  The Barna BWV construction results in generationally divisive judgements and programs designed to assimilate younger people to some theoretically more foundational Christian position than Jesus. Socialization of youth is a normal and natural part of any healthy community or society, but so is change. The conversation will continue, but I've said enough.

0 Comments

unChristian Biblical Worldview Part 2

10/24/2010

0 Comments

In my last post, I described the recent attention to young adult faith and religiosity and The Barna Group's "Biblical Worldview" or BWV as I call it. So, what do I think this survey means exactly? Well, the reason I am calling these posts "unChristian Biblical Worldview" is because the set of items that Barna describes approvingly as the BWV seems likely to produce precisely the kinds of Christians that ultimately produce the kinds of responses to Christians described in unchristian. Yet, Barna is promoting their version of the BWV and producing materials designed to nurture and foster it.

unchristian respondents described Christians as hypocritical, insincere and only concerned with converting people, antihomosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgemental. If, as the article cited in my last post suggests, BWV actually results in strong disapproval of various behaviors, then judgemental and antihomosexual make sense. If, as I infer from the same article, BWV results in more disapproval than actual behavioral compliance (the article only lists behavioral compliance on gambling, getting drunk and viewing porn), then hypocritical makes sense too.

A more foundational consideration is the selection of items that constitute the BWV. For instance, why is sharing faith the only behavioral obligation on the BWV list, as opposed to say compassionate interaction with others? The latter has more frequent and consistent Biblical support and would likely result in more sincere interaction, while the former could more easily correlate to an offensive preoccupation with the conversion of others.  I'm not arguing that Christians don't have this obligation, but I question whether it is more foundational to a worldview shaped by the Bible than some other obligations. I would have similar questions about the BWV items about the reality of Satan and the sinlessness of Jesus, not because they aren't "Biblical" but because they don't seem as foundational, frequent or pervasive in the Bible itself as say... the sinfulness of human beings or the reality of angels for instance. I might also ask questions about the BWV's association of "truth" with "accuracy" (this is derived from Barna's book Think Like Jesus) but that is for the next post.

One other correlate is crucial to aligning the lists from the BWV and unchristian data. David Kinnaman spoke at a conference at Messiah College (my alma mater and current employer) this past summer. I found him refreshing and winsome.  I will say more about his presentation in the next post about the demographic gap and young adults. Kinnaman revealed one piece of data that I have not found anywhere else: He told the audience that 60% of Christians with a BWV also would support a federal amendment declaring Christianity the official religion of the United States!! I think I can safely say that this could be considered a contribution to the "too political" perception of non-Christians in unchristian. The question is whether this makes them (in my opinion) unchristian (supporting a kind of power-grab that seems very contra-Jesus) or un-American (rejecting a fundamental item of the First Amendment).

Since only 19% of those Barna described as "born-again Christians" had a BWV, and in another Barna release, only half of Protestant pastors had a BWV, the BWV clearly cannot be held responsible for the perceptions cited in unchristian, unless Christians with a BWV have a massively disproportionate influence on the general perception of all Christians. We certainly can't blame the Bible, since (it seems to me) the Barna BWV is an odd set of priorities Biblically speaking. What seems possible is: since significantly more pastors do have a BWV, they may be doing a better job at communicating an obligation to disapprove than inculcating the particular Barna BWV.

In my next post I will consider the generation gap in the BWV and the "truth" factor.

0 Comments

unChristian Biblical Worldview Part 1

10/23/2010

10 Comments

It seems that nothing is hotter these days than the faith and religious practices of youth and young adults, and maybe the 20-somethings in general. Young adults leaving church is occasionally front page news. Major studies have been published by sociologists Christian Smith and Robert Wuthnow, as well as Christian publisher Lifeway, and books about young adult ministry methodology abound (by ministers of all ages, and various locations in Christian tradition). The Barna Group has been at this longer than most. In 2007, Barna research commissioned by Gabe Lyons confirmed what most Americans already know; that non-Christians think that Christians are pretty unchristian (which resulted in the book by that title).

Another Barna research project has involved research into Americans’ adherence to “The Biblical Worldview” (BWV hereafter) and resulted in George Barna’s book Think Like Jesus. A 2003 article called A Biblical Worldview Has A Radical Affect On A Person’s Life, reported on some of the results of this research, which included levels of adherence to BWV (about 4% of the population in 2003, 9% in a 2009 article) as well as the implications for certain standards of behavioral compliance. Not surprisingly, Americans with a BWV were much more likely to adhere to the standards of morality affirmed by people with a BWV (which largely consists of disapproval of certain sexual behaviors, drunkenness and gambling). While it is highly unlikely that any American would possess a BWV under the Barna framework, it is much more likely if one is a White married Protestant, over 30 years of age who lives in Texas or North Carolina. Hm.
At this point, I suspect you’re wondering: What IS the BWV? I’ll tell you (although iterations vary from the 2003 to the 2009 article).

The Barna Group measures adherence to the BWV according to belief-agreement with 8 items:

Absolute moral truth exists; 34/46

- Such truth is defined by the Bible

The Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. 50/79

Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic. 27/40

A person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works. 28/47

Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth. 40/62

God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today. 70/93

Christians have an obligation to share their faith with others.

So, what does this mean and why is it important? What does it have to do with young adults?
And what are those numbers about? I’ll tell you what I think in my next post.

10 Comments

Liberation in White and Black

Ben Stein v. Bill Maher (indirectly)

unChristian Biblical Worldview Part 3 - Youth For Truth?

unChristian Biblical Worldview Part 2

unChristian Biblical Worldview Part 1

Matt Hunter, Ph.D

Archives

Categories