A Response to Brandon Phinney - New Hampshire Republican Atheist

“I do not see the value of belief systems that consistently devalue others by telling them they're bad people for not believing the same things or having some sort of moral superiority. Also the amount of hatred from these groups that manifest into violence turns people away.”

So says Brandon Phinney who is a state representative in New Hampshire.   He is writing in response to an article in a New Hampshire newspaper which notes New Hampshire is the most secular state in the United States.  His screed goes on to make the usual arguments about separation of church and state and how science has disproved religion and so forth.  His arguments are mostly clichés and show that, like many who trample on religion, he actually knows very little about Christianity and religion in general.

First, Christianity does not devalue anyone.  Christianity doesn’t condemn anyone because they don’t believe the “same things.”  Christianity starts from the proposition that all of us are in the same boat – we are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God.  There is a completely level playing field.  Moreover, Christians understand they’re not special because they follow certain rules or have attained some sort of moral “superiority.”  Quite the contrary, Christians recognize their depravity and are joyful because of what God has done for them, not because of any merit on their part.  Christians find their solace in the glory of God through the redemption found in repenting of that sin and accepting that Jesus took on the sins of the world through his sacrifice on the cross at Calvary.  Finally, I defy Mr. Phinney to show the violence Christians “manifest.”  Specifically, I’m referring to actual violence, not the faux violence of being “offensive” by saying words that people don’t want to hear.  Christians don’t commit acts of violence because it violates the very core of what it means to love neighbor.  Those who act violently and claim they’re doing God’s work have no understanding of the very clear words of Scripture.  Worse, Mr. Phinney’s hypocritical resort to stereotypes is precisely the very kind of verbal “violence” of which he and others accuse Christians.  Finally, does it not “devalue” Christians to make the kinds of claims you are making, Mr. Phinney?  Yes, I so enjoy the irony – atheists just can’t help themselves!

Phinney also argues “In an age of information, scientific progress and exploration and the understanding of the workings of our world, it is difficult and to be frank, rather foolish, to hold onto archaic beliefs that deny reality.”  (DEEP SIGH).  First, I’m unaware of Christians routinely “denying reality.”  Christians know that the world operates according to principles of physics and chemistry and biology.  Gravity exists; whales inhabit the oceans; termites eat wood; light has peculiar properties of both particles and waves.  Mr. Phinney ought to spend a few hours at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  What he would find is that Ken Hamm isn’t denying that things happen, mostly he points out the facts are equivocal, not that they aren’t facts.  So when a Christian sees how certain birds are made such that they are able to pull seeds out of pine cones, eating some and dispersing others, he or she says “look how God made this work.”  The secular-materialist, like Mr. Phinney, can only say, gosh look how as a result of cosmic accidents and time these things happen.  Both parties agree on the reality – the question is how that reality got to be the reality.

By the way, Mr. Phinney, using the word “archaic” to describe Christian beliefs doesn’t make them incorrect.  Guess what Mr. Phinney, people long before Isaac Newton understood gravity – you didn’t need to tell people in Jesus’ time that if they threw a rock into the air it would come back down.  But even more astounding, Mr. Phinney, people in Jesus’ time knew that sexual intercourse was required to have children.  Shockingly, they also knew that when people died, they didn’t come back to life.  These are reasons why Jesus’ story is so unique and unusual – he defied what people waaaaaaay back then, those “archaic” morons back then, KNEW was the norm for human beings.   The truth is that those archaic beliefs (that sex creates children, that dead people stay dead, that rocks thrown up do fall down) are the same beliefs that you, Mr. Phinney, also accept as true. 

You deny Jesus was born of a virgin mother and that he was bodily resurrected.  I understand that’s what you mean by archaic foolishness.  However, I don’t believe that those things are normal, Mr. Phinney.  They happened ONCE for all time.  Not even in the Bible does anyone ever get resurrected and stay alive forever.  Yes, Jesus performed miracles, including raising his friend, Lazarus, from the dead.  But it was temporary.  Lazarus later died.  I don’t conclude this stuff happens all the time – but I guess even once is too many times for you.  That seems awfully odd coming from someone who believes that with time + chance just about anything can happen . . . but what does a silly Christian like me know?

What I guess I find most bizarre is that Mr. Phinney, as an atheist, seems to think it matters that he believes what he believes.  There cannot be any objective absolutes in your system of belief, Mr. Phinney, just educated guesses because nothing remains stable in your system – you said it yourself – our  “understanding of the workings of our world” is somehow different than it used to be.  I don’t agree this is true – our understanding is not much different, we just know more facts.  Our understanding is still pretty much the same as it was even 3,000 years ago when Solomon wrote the following: the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all.  For man does not know his time. (Ecclesiastes 9:11-12).  Two thousand years ago, Paul wrote in Romans 11:33 that God’s ways are inscrutable.  The truth is we don’t have control of our reality, Mr. Phinney, God does.  As a result, our feeble efforts to control reality fall flat every time.

There’s an amazing irony that the Brandon Phinney’s of this world claim they only believe in facts and rational thinking, but then seem to claim they somehow can control reality while those of us who believe in God recognize we aren’t in control.  Who is the truly rational one here?

America's Lost Middle Ground

America has lost its middle ground.

As a result, no one truly talks anymore.

I have a friend with whom I conversed often regarding issues upon which we had significant disagreements, politically, socially, and theologically.  Yet, while some of our exchanges were certainly impassioned, neither of us ever felt the other was any less a friend.  Speaking for myself, I would do pretty much anything this friend asked of me.  I believe he would feel the same about me.

I am a Christian – my friend is agnostic.  I am socially conservative – my friend is socially liberal.  I generally vote Republican – my friend generally votes Democrat.  I like to read mostly non-fiction – my friend prefers fiction.

How then could we ever manage to get along?  Middle ground.

Don’t misunderstand me – I’m not talking about middle ground in the sense of either of us giving up our sincerely held beliefs about anything.  I’m talking about the two of us finding certain things upon which we could agree and using those as a springboard for recognizing that whatever our differences, we could, nonetheless engage in a civil conversation.  Interestingly, often we found our differences were not nearly as profound as might appear.

For instance, we might not agree on the best way to relieve poverty, but we both accepted the general notion that relieving poverty, locally, nationally, and internationally was a laudable goal.  Middle ground.

We didn’t agree on whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do back during the Bush years, but we both agreed that those who brought down the Twin Towers needed to be brought to  justice, including any state that may have participated or helped in financing, planning or executing the attack.  Middle ground.

Does this mean I softened any of my Christian beliefs in order to keep my friend happy?  Not at all.  In fact, in an ironic way, our friendship did nothing but strengthen my Christian commitment.  He made me think more carefully and more profoundly about why I believe what I believe and why Christianity makes sense.  I suspect I made him think more carefully and profoundly about his agnosticism.  Middle ground.

You see we accepted and tolerated each other’s differences, as deep as they sometimes were, knowing that there was mutual respect and, yes, even love for the other.  We didn’t have to agree on everything to be friends.   In fact, our differences often made for some of our most enjoyable discussions.  Middle ground.

Along the way we found out there were some things we did agree on wholeheartedly.  Our college alma mater’s football team was a source of much discussion, enjoyment and heartache.  We both love soccer and both understand that the US will have a hard time fielding a great international team until it changes much about its entire structure of developing soccer players.  As lawyers, we both acknowledged justice was often less glorious than people believe and frequently a matter of time and chance rather than truth and law.  As men married for many years, we both recognized that figuring out our wives was still sometime mysterious, but we were nonetheless pleased who our wives were.  We both enjoyed a good cup of coffee in the morning and neither of us was afraid to eat a hamburger once in a while.  Middle ground.

The middle ground doesn’t mean that I quit being who I am and you quit being who you are.  What it does mean is that we recognize a common humanity.  What it does mean is we recognize that we are all fallible.  What it does mean is we act graciously towards others, even when we have disagreements.

My sense is that much of our current public upheaval has less to do with real divisions in our country and more to do with a complete unwillingness to recognize that differences need not end relationships.  For crying out loud, as much as I love my wife, I don’t want her to be a mirror image of me!  That would be exceedingly boring. 

Until we determine as a society that we are going to reclaim that middle ground, then the current divisions and distrust will continue to run unabated.

There are many who thrive on this division and distrust and ironically, many of the most vitriolic purveyors of this division and distrust are those who claim most loudly that it is the other side which is causing it all.  I could name names and you’d nod your head in agreement.  My sense is many of us (most?) find all this unpalatable and unappetizing.  We long for a willingness among our political, social, and spiritual leaders to reclaim that middle ground.

What this means is that even though I think Bill Maher is going to hell because of his atheism, it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have a cup of coffee with him and talk about whatever was on his mind.  What it doesn’t mean is that I would soften my views on abortion or gay marriage or belief that Jesus was God in the flesh to somehow get him to warm up to me.  I wouldn’t demand he soften his views on any of those issues either.  That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t try to persuade him to change and I wouldn’t take offense at him attempting to persuade me to change.

As I recently told a friend who has a habit of using profanity, which I simply don’t do, I don’t take offense as long as he’s not intending for the profanity to offend me.  I don’t mind telling him I don’t care for profanity, but I’m not letting that stop me from engaging with him, even on issues over which we might not agree. 

The middle ground doesn’t mean any of us give up our convictions.  The middle ground does mean we give up our right to be offended that others have convictions different from ours.  The middle ground doesn’t mean we don’t debate vociferously for what we believe is true.  The middle ground does mean that after the debate we acknowledge the other’s humanity and recognize none of us knows everything (or are even close).  The middle ground doesn’t mean that there aren’t winners and losers.  The middle ground does mean we stop acting like sore winners and sore losers.

Perhaps it’s gone forever?  Probably I’m engaged in a pipe dream.  Still, here’s to hoping those of us who believe in the middle ground will reach out and claim it again.

Public Accomodation and the "Bona Fide" Religious Activity

In 2014 I wrote the following for a paper in one of my seminary classes:

The overwhelming success of the radical homosexual agenda will result in serious difficulties for churches with stationary buildings.  First, to the extent churches are legally deemed places of public accommodation, they may find themselves running afoul of human rights laws which are already in place, as well as possible future laws which might be passed.  Churches will have to re-think whether they will permit Boy Scouts, civic groups, or any religiously unaffiliated group of any kind, no matter how humanitarian, to use the facilities.  The argument that homosexual activists will make is that if the church opens its doors to the Red Cross for a blood drive, then it can’t close its doors to GLAAD for a meeting.

The State of Massachusetts faced a lawsuit from four churches for making precisely this kind of regulation.  Fortunately, the churches prevailed and the state changed its regulation.  State Abandons Gender Mandate for Churches.  However the Iowa “Civil Rights” Commission has recently interpreted the recent transgender bathroom business as requiring that churches must permit people to use whatever bathroom they want unless the church is engaged in a ”bona fide religious purpose.”  In other words, the only time you can prevent people from using the bathroom of their choice is when the church is actually having a “church” service.  But isn’t it a bona fide religious purpose to offer your church building for use by the Boy Scouts, or other groups, because you have space that might not get used otherwise and it is, therefore, good stewardship?   Moreover, isn’t it neighborly to allow folks to use the facilities?  These are very Christian concepts (stewardship and neighborliness) which churches seek to promote because it furthers their bona fide religious purpose.  Yet, it’s clear states like Massachusetts and Iowa aren’t so sure and are willing to insert themselves into church business like never before.

My suspicion is that many of these laws and regulations get passed by people who know little about Christian theology.  They seem to think that Christianity is no different than the Lion’s Club or some other such do-gooder organization.  They see church buildings as no different than Moose Lodges.  There is also an utter disregard for irony and inconsistency that has become commonplace in our culture.  The First Amendment not only contains the Establishment Clause (the government shall not establish a religion) but also a Free Exercise Clause (nor shall it prevent the free exercise thereof).  Yet, so many today ironically seem to think the government’s obligation to avoid establishing religion compels a requirement that it meddle in religion – thus, the Iowa civil rights regulators feel free to explain to churches what is a “bona fide” religious matter and what is not.  Apparently, hosting a free spaghetti dinner for the community is not a bona fide religious event, even though any church which does so would politely explain that such a dinner serves several functions: first, Christians are commanded by the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) to graciously help those in need; second, it is a way for the church to exercise hospitality, as commanded by the New Testament; finally, it allows the Christians within the church to explain the gospel message to those who come to the dinner.  Events like this are more than a handout – they are full blown, “bona fide” religious events with deep theological significance.  Just because some legislators or regulators fail to understand this doesn’t make it just another food bank.

The premise of the paper I wrote in 2014 was that churches may be in for serious problems because of this “public accommodation” notion.  Secular folks simply aren’t equipped to appreciate or understand why everything churches do has a “bona fide” theological underpinning.  There is no distinction (or certainly ought not to be) between the Christian’s private and public life.  The Christian operates in a sphere in which all his or her activity should be the result of a desire to please God in all matters.  This means the Christian life begins and ends with theological concerns about everything.  Cynics will argue this is just a ruse to hide money from the government or to obscure a desire to discriminate against the LGBTQ crowd, or to engage in some other insidious or nefarious activity.  Yet, the staggering truth is that even mowing the church grass serves a theological function because it is a means of engaging in stewardship of a resource God has provided to the Christians who meet there.  There is no splicing out of the Christian action a so-called “bona fide” religious activity versus something that is not.

Now before I am skewered by critics, I am not suggesting that anything goes.  Clearly no Christian church can act in contradiction to the Bible and still claim it is engaged in a “bona fide” religious activity.  So a church can’t run a brothel or deal drugs on its premises and seek to shelter its activities and income from government intrusion.  Moreover, no one would suggest that a gas station owned by a church and run for a profit would be exempt from taxation or environmental regulations.  But here’s the thing, Christian churches don’t do these things then seek to avoid governmental interference.  Of course, there will always be people engaged in less than scrupulous activities in the name of Christ,  but experience suggests Christians overwhelmingly seek to honor Christ by acting in accordance with the Bible.  That’s why Christians are constantly starting homeless shelters and agencies for transitioning people from drugs, or from the sex industry.  Christians give generously even outside of church to help feed people and provide medical care to those who have trouble affording it.  It’s an odd sort of nefariousness that tries so hard to help others.  Christian churches simply aren’t engaged in some kind of massive conspiracy to dupe anyone.  Quite the opposite is true. 

Christian churches are not perfect.  But that’s not what’s at stake here. What’s at stake is whether our federal, state and local governments are going to recognize that these efforts to parse out every little thing churches do as a bona fide religious activity is (1) a fool’s errand and (2) a violation of the free exercise clause.

We’ll be watching.

The Wrong Kind of Different

            As you read through the varying definitions of diversity from major universities one thing is utterly striking:  there is a fundamental assumption that diversity for its own sake is a societal good.  Note for instance this language from the University of Oregon: “It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.”  While the statement doesn’t say it directly, the implication is clear – each individual is the arbiter of his or her own moral universe.  The University of Montana suggests “. . .learning is enhanced when topics are examined from diverse perspectives . . .”  Part of the Kansas State credo requires an “[u]nderstanding that diversity includes not only ways of being but also ways of knowing.” Do homosexuals, or atheists, or Zoroastrians, or Chinese understand 1+1=2 differently from heterosexuals, Christians, other religions, or other races?  If each individual is the arbiter of his or her own moral universe and each has his or her own perspective on what would otherwise be clear about propositional truth, upon what basis can one claim diversity should matter?  Suppose it is my view that diversity is bad and that I don’t want to have my learning opportunities “enhanced” with “diverse perspectives?”  Unfortunately, and ironically, diversity demands that the peculiar “dimensions of diversity contained [in me]” should neither be embraced nor celebrated.

            Diversity, then, in spite of itself, becomes propositional truth among people who claim not to believe in propositional truth.  For instance, Kansas State University proposes that “embracing diversity includes realizing that everyone is diminished if all are not represented.”  Everyone is supposed to have a seat at the table.  The problem is this means that people who do not think diversity is a moral value should then have a seat at the table.  Suppose the non-diverse believer then persuades the diversity believers that non-diversity is acceptable?  What then?  Does the university then change its mind?  Is non-diversity acceptable if everyone agrees that non-diversity is actually the preferable arrangement?  Upon what basis would the university be able to argue otherwise?  Particularly since learning about non-diversity has been enhanced with diverse perspectives and all have been “represented?”  Diversity is a completely unworkable standard.

            Of course, this will not happen.  Why not?  Because diversity is accepted as a propositional truth.  One cannot, however, claim diversity is propositionally true because its underlying rationale (to dignify it with that appellation) is that everyone is different and these differences, including different perspectives on truth must not merely be acknowledged but embraced.  The thing is, though, I can’t embrace any other truth than 1+1=2.  I don’t care what your perspective is.  The diversity proponent claims to have me here because diversity doesn’t apply to math because math isn’t about morals.  Math problems have defined answers.  Moral problems don’t.  But this means that morals are not absolute.  Oh, yes, the diversity proponent will say, morals are, well, diverse.  Everyone has their own view which must be respected, so morals are not absolute.  If morals are not absolute, then diversity must not be an absolute standard, since it is a moral standard, right?

            Silence?

            Some, Catherine Ross of George Washington Law School for instance, simply ignore thorny problems like this.  In her article in the 2010 William of Mary Bill of Rights Journal, she explains that tolerance and diversity are constitutional norms in our democratic society.  She never explains the basis for her claim but simply asserts it as an obvious normative proposition.  She doesn’t attempt to justify her claim with any actual logical support, because, as noted above, such support doesn’t exist.  This passes for academic thoughtfulness.

            Diversity’s twin, tolerance, also fails to meet its own standard, for even more obvious reasons.  If tolerance is propositionally true, then it means that all of us should be tolerant of each other.  Moreover, if tolerance means, as it appears to mean, unqualified and uncritical acceptance of all people, then it must mean that Christians, atheists, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and any other religious groups must be accepted without qualification and without any critical review of their beliefs.  Ironically, however, to refer back to Professor Ross, she actually argues, no doubt with a straight face, that there are limits to tolerance.  How can this possibly be?  Either everyone is treated the same way and is tolerated, or you really don’t have tolerance.  It goes without saying that one cannot logically argue for tolerance but then put limits on it.  Nonetheless, this happens regularly.[1]

            Let’s go to the University of Oregon: “It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.” (Emphasis added).  I guess I missed the boat – it’s not about so called “simple tolerance.”  Hmm.  I am literally scratching my head.  I presume simple tolerance means what would ordinarily be understood – that I accept you are different from me and respectfully agree to disagree.  This can only mean that the University of Oregon will not accept my belief that some views are just morally wrong.  The University of Oregon wants to move beyond this to “embracing and celebrating rich dimensions of diversity.” (Emphasis, again, added).    Ironically, however, my view that some moral beliefs are wrong is not embraced and celebrated as part of the rich dimension of diversity.  

            This is the world which we currently inhabit.  I read comments on websites all the time from anti-Christians who rant and rave about how I am trying to ram religion down other people’s throats and trying to force my agenda on people and so forth.  Ironically, and illogically, aren’t they saying the same thing?  That is, are these folks not simply saying their agenda is to ram their beliefs down my throat and forcing their agenda on me?  They don’t want me to be able to speak out.

            Now, when someone like Milo Yiannopoulus[2] is invited to speak on a college campus, the entire campus goes into an uproar.  I am not defending Milo’s views, which I think bespeak mostly a design for Milo to gain fame and fortune for Milo.  Nonetheless, shouldn’t “embracing and celebrating rich dimensions of diversity” include allowing even people with whom we disagree at the most fundamental levels to speak their mind?  The answer, at least at the former bastion of the so-called “Free Speech Movement,” UC-Berkley, involves lighting fires and destroying property in order to prevent Milo from speaking on campus.  Of course, this was only after non-violent means failed to get the administration’s attention.  Hmm.  What happened to “embracing and celebrating?”  The tortured logic goes like this: we tried to stop him from speaking through all available non-violent means.  Milo’s speech is so grotesquely immoral that when non-violent protest fails to work, violent means are acceptable to stop him.  Oddly, this sounds eerily similar to the very things so many on the anti-Milo side are claiming Donald Trump is doing and wants to do.  I guess fighting fire with fire is fine.

            I got to listen to Rod Dreher speak at Southern Seminary recently.  He writes at The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/).  He suggested Christians must discard wrath as an appropriate response to this kind of thinking.  He is not, as I understand his position, in favor of foregoing self-defense altogether, but argued that as we engage others intellectually, especially via social media, we should forego wrathfulness.   In light of Christ’s request that God “forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), Rod may well be onto something.  If Jesus could forgive those who crucified him while he was in the process of being crucified, can we not, while we are in the process of merely being irritated by illogical and irrational college students, also be willing to forgive?  Jesus replaced wrath with forgiveness.

            Look, I’m just an unknown blogger with a lawyer’s mind and some theological training.  What do I know?  That said, I am a bit worried this is not going to end well.  I’d love to think this is just the 60’s again, but those folks, for all their faults, and despite some who were insanely radical (let’s blow up everything and start over types), actually cared about others (I think)[3].  I believe (as I grimace in hope) those folks were actually coming from an ideal that if we just tried really hard, we could get along, despite our differences.  The current crop seems to think that forcing people to accept others is a moral imperative which does not involve trying to get along.  You either accept the social orthodoxy or you are subject to violence because failure to accept the social orthodoxy is, itself, a violent act.  You don’t accept others, despite their differences, you accept others because they are the right kind of different.  Those who are not the right kind of different are to be opposed, even violently if necessary.  It’s almost as if merely being the wrong kind of different, in itself, is a form of violence.

            In any event, for those of us who are Christians, we cannot give in to the propensity to fight fire with fire.  We must fight with the word of God.  We must fight with the love of Christ.  We must fight with the understanding that vengeance belongs to God, not us.  We must fight the good fight, but never with the kind of illogic and irrationality and complete lack of honesty exhibited by the “right kind of different” crowd.  We’ll have to remain the “wrong” kind of different and accept the consequences.  It may be painful for some of us or even many of us.  Nonetheless, we must show the right kind of different crowd there is a better way.

---

[1] See Yossi Nehushtan, Intolerant Religion in a Tolerant-Liberal Democracy, Hart Publishing.

[2] Milo is a foppish editor for Breitbart.com whose shtick is that he’s a conservative homosexual who makes outlandish statements about social issues.

[3] One of my cousins was a 60’s radical of the “blow it up and start over” variety.  Over time he got his college degree, went on to get married, have a family, and become an entrepreneur who has worked in manufacturing of various types his entire adult life.  My point is that he didn’t resort to violence – he learned a better way.  He is getting along, despite differences.  Thus, my belief the 60’s crowd was different.  I know this is merely anecdotal evidence, but it’s some.