Why Separating the Sacred and the Secular is a Bad Thing

The Secular Coalition of America (SCA) is asking people to knit a brick "to help rebuild the wall of separation between church and state."1 In a recent press release, the organization derided the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision and is hoping to visually protest it by creating a knitted wall. This is not a surprise as the release also identifies their purpose "to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all."2

Is it the best guarantee of freedom for all, though? The SCA seems to maintain that government should remain wholly secular and uninfluenced by those who are motivated by their faith commitments to rebel against laws which they deem in violation of their religiously-informed moral choices. Certainly the Hobby Lobby family's argument was such.

But does a position of purely secular governance conflict with "the best guarantee of freedom for all?" For example, a Christian bishop had been petitioning the President of the United States to change his policy on a certain matter because it violated his Christian principles. He explained the motive for his demands were rooted in God:

It is not a pleasant task to make an appeal, where excited public feeling may arouse unkind suspicions and unjust accusations. Few men love more than myself the approval of their fellow citizens, and none desire more the affection of those among whom they labor. I dare not be silent; I fear less the reproaches of the people than the anger of GOD.3

While such a statement would surely inflame the folks of the SCA, this man's religiously motivated quest was actually successful. The man in question was Bishop Henry B. Whipple and the policy he sought to change was the treatment of the Dakota and Sioux Native Americans by the federal government.  According to a Los Angeles Times article by Gustav Niebuhr, Whipple had petitioned President James Buchanan but never received a response. After Lincoln was elected president, he continued his letter writing campaign which eventually resulted in a meeting with the president. Whipple single-handedly saved the lives of 265 Dakotas who were sentenced to death.4 This happened because one man's religion motivated him to push his beliefs into the political arena.

Of course, Christians spurred by their faith to change political policy for the better is nothing new. William Wilberforce fought for over two decades in the British Parliament to end the slave trade.5 Elizabeth Fry sought reforms for prison conditions and the welfare of inmates, even using Bible studies to reform those thought incorrigible.6 So it goes throughout history. Even during the days of Rome, it was one Christian monk named Telemachus who stood up to the popular practice of the Gladiatorial games and gave his life so others' would be spared.

Each one of the people above took an unpopular position and advocated against government standards of their day. They did so simply because governmental policy violated their religiously-based morality. If the SCA's concept of strict separation were in place at any of those times, people would not be better off. The Dakotas, the slaves, the prisoners, and the gladiators would not be more free, but less free.

The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees that the federal government will neither establish any official religion, but it also guarantees that the free exercise thereof by the citizens of this country shall not be prohibited. The first clause is to make sure religion doesn't come under government control. The second is to make sure that citizens' religions have the ability to inform their understanding and their worldview. These are prescriptions against government, not against people who own businesses, people who petition the government, nor even policy decisions brought before the government. The SCA would silence people such as Bishop Whipple simply because his message comes from a Christian point of view. I can think of at least 265 reasons why that's wrong.

References

1. "Knit a Brick." Secular Coalition for America. Web. https://secular.org/content/knitabrick-sponsors. Accessed 18-07-2014.

2. "Secular Coalition Condemns SCOTUS Decision to Strike Down Contraceptive Coverage Requirement." Secular Coalition for America. Web. https://secular.org/news/secular-coalition-condemns-scotus-decision-strike-down-contraceptive-coverage-requirement  30-06-2014.  Accessed 19-07-2014.       

3. Whipple, Henry B. "Plea for the Red Man." Project Canterbury. Web. Reprinted from the "Missionary Paper," No. 24, Epiphany, 1868. http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/whipple/plea1868.html

4. Niebuhr, Gustav. "How a bishop moved Lincoln, and saved 265 Dakota Indians." The Los Angeles Times. 17-07-2014. Web. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-niebuhr-abraham-lincoln-religion-indians-20140718-story.html

5. "William Wilberforce." ChristianHistory.net. 08-08-2008. Web. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/activists/wilberforce.html

6. "Elizabeth Fry." ChristianHistory.net. 08-08-2008. Web. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/activists/fry.html

Image © Copyright John Vetterli and licensed for reuse under thisCreative Commons Licence

Investigating the Truth of the Gospel Eyewitnesses

Yesterday, I was able to talk with a room full of middle-schoolers at Magnolia Church who were investigating the claims of Jesus' death and resurrection. Their mission was to critically examine the gospel accounts and see what evidence they could find to determine the truth value of the accounts.

As any good investigator would, one should start an investigation into the truth with the earliest eyewitness accounts. The gospel of Mark is held by most scholars as the first of the four to be written, probably between the mid to late 50's, then Matthew and Luke were composed in the 60's, with John written last in the 90's1. So, while John was written some 50-60 years after Jesus' crucifixion, Mark closes that gap by 40 years, being composed within a couple of decades after Jesus' death. While skeptics try to make a big deal out of the gospels being written decades after the events, this is actually a boon for those who study ancient history. But many cultures who even today rely on the spoken word rather than the written word would never see this as a problem, as several scholars state.

An Insult Offers an Insight

One of the primary objections to the Gospel accounts is that the passion story was made up after the fact in order to launch the newly-formed Christian religion. Joe L. Watts, for example, believes that the Gospel writers "'creatively' expanded the original story of Jesus to speak to their current social problems."2 However, as good investigators there are ways we can study the text to see if there are any clues that lead us to such a conclusion.

One such clue is found in the taunts that Mark said were thrown at Jesus while He hung on the cross. In Mark 15:27-32 we read:

And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!" So also the chief priests with the scribes mocked him to one another, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe." Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

Here, we have a supposed eyewitness account of the events around Jesus' crucifixion.  The mocking particularly is significant. While John's account doesn't mention it, both Matthew and Luke record the mocking of the chief priests and scribes. But only Mark's gospel includes that passersby said a very specific thing to him: "Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!" Why is that significant? It is simply because nowhere in the gospel of Mark does Jesus ever claim that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it. That story isn't found until John's gospel is written some forty years later!

Corroborating Testimony

If Mark wasn't reporting eyewitness testimony, if he was inventing or expanding the story of Jesus' crucifixion, then why would he include this taunt, but provide no explanation for it and no back story? Someone creating a fictional account wouldn't make such a boast come out of the mouth of Jesus, because by itself it looks as if Jesus failed at that claim. The temple wasn't destroyed at all. Only some 60 years later, in John chapter 2 do we understand what Jesus meant by his prediction. "But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken." So, John makes it clear that the prediction Jesus offered was referencing His resurrection, not the destruction of the actual temple. But how would Mark know this when John hadn't been written yet?

Some may claim that john added the passage in chapter two to help the story along. But if John were trying to solidify the crucifixion narrative of Mark, how come he leaves out the insults at the cross completely? If his goal was to buttress Mark's account, then one would assume he would include the insults in the crucifixion. But John leaves them out. Both gospel account rely on one another in order for the picture to become clear.

Police investigators are very familiar with this kind of interlocking testimony from eyewitnesses. Jim Wallace, a cold-case detective was trained in a method called "forensic statement analysis" the purpose of which is to "determine truthfulness or deception on the part of the person making the statement."3 The fact that Mark provides a trivial bit of information that fits nowhere else in his account and John provides additional information but leaves out the climax in his account argues that both accounts are eyewitness testimony and not fable, fiction, or fraud. Here's just clue that the crucifixion and resurrection happened as the gospels say it did. There are many other pieces of interlocking testimony throughout all four gospels, but this example should suffice to get our investigation pointing in the right direction.

For more on this, please check out our featured resource available this month: "Hidden Ways the Gospels Prove Reliable."

References

1. See Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.(Downers Grove, Il: IVP Academic, 2007). 25-26.
2. Watts, Joel L. "Are the Gospels Made Up?" Web. HuffingtonPost.com 29-07-2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-l-watts/christian-gospels-truth_b_3668426.html
3. Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-Case Christianity. (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013). 88.

Your Mind is Not Your Brain

Historically, Christianity has taught that human beings are creatures made up of two fundamental kinds of "stuff"—body and soul. We are physical creatures, interacting with the world around us, and we are spiritual creatures who can interact meaningfully with God and with one another. However, there is a trend today that dismisses the spiritual side of humanity and seeks to only affirm the physical aspects of our existence. Atheists, scientists, and others claim that we are only our bodies. There is no such thing as a soul. All of who we are may be explained in terms of scientific understanding. There is a big problem with this view, though. There are certain aspects of the human condition that simply cannot be explained in physicalist term, such as the attributes of the mind.

In order to better understand the problem, I'd like to look at the attributes of the mind. Whenever on seeks to classify a certain thing, it is the attributes of that thing that help us in so doing. For example, when British naturalist began to explore Australia, the discovery of the platypus gave them fits! Here was an animal, kind of shaped like a beaver with a bill and webbed feet of a duck. Further, the creature laid leathery eggs and produced venom like a reptile. How would one classify such an animal? It is because the platypus was warm blooded, covered in hair (not feathers or scales), and nursed its young that naturalists listed the animal as a mammal. The attributes of the animal help us categorize it.

Similarly, there are specific attributes of the mind which clearly demonstrate that the mind cannot be reduced to brain activity. Brain activity is electro-chemical and can be described using physical nomenclature. For example, if their instruments are sensitive enough, one could measure the amount of dopamine present in the brain or tell if certain neurons were firing at x point in time. But as Daniel N. Robinson has succinctly noted, "One who spoke of pounds of thought or volts of memory would be considered not a native speaker! Equally bizarre, at least in the area of common sense and ordinary judgments are the claims to the effect that brain tissue makes moral judgments and wishes nothing but happiness for the bride and groom."1

Here are at least five attributes of the mind that can in no way be explained in physical terms:

1. Thoughts - Thoughts are one of the most basic elements of the mind. A thought is any idea that can be expressed in the form of a sentence. I can ask you to think about pink elephants right now and you can picture a pink elephant in your head.
2. Beliefs – Beliefs are different from thoughts. Beliefs carry a truth value to them. If I believe that the Los Angeles kings will win a third Stanley Cup championship, then I hold the statement to be true. I currently believe that I am sitting in front of my computer right now typing this blog post. Such a belief is not hard to hold. However, I also believe that the memories I have of yesterday are true. That belief is harder to prove.
3. Intentions – Intentions are mental events that are usually tied to some action or event. I can intend to raise my hand and my hand will rise. My intention caused m hand to go up. However, intentions are not the same thing as the action. People who suffer from Tourette's syndrome move parts of their body without intending to do so. Also, I may have intentions without being able to execute them. If my hand is tied down, I will not be able to move it, even though I'm intending to do so.
4. Desires – Desire are primarily natural inclinations that one experiences. Hunger is the desire to eat food. Desires can produce thoughts or intentions, but they are different. They sometimes have a biological basis, but not always. One can have the desire to solve a particularly pressing math problem for example.
5. Sensations – Sensations are how our minds comprehend sensory input from our bodies. While our ears can translate sound waves into electrical signals and send them to our brains, only our mind can have the experience that the sound is pleasing or annoying. Feeling pain or heat happen at the mental level. Even seeing the color red, one has an experience of "redness." Red has a certain quality to it that green doesn't and one cannot explain such qualities by talking about wavelengths of light any more than one cannot warn a two-year-old about burning her hand on a hot oven with talk of high energy molecules.

All of these attributes above are real and each of us has experienced them. You have had thoughts, beliefs, intentions, desires, and sensations. These things are real and, as J.P. Moreland states, they are "puzzling entities that cry out for an explanation."2 Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel states that mental events need to be explained Nagel holds that "certain things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as non-accidental if we are to pretend to a real understanding of the world"3 and the mind is one of those. He later writes that "the physical sciences will enable us to understand the irreducibly subjective centers of consciousness that are such a conspicuous part of the world."4

Tomorrow, we will look more closely at why physicalist explanations of the mind fail. But for now, it is important to realize that your mind is not your brain. It is something with different attributes, which means it falls into a separate category: the category of the soul.

References

1. Robinson, Daniel N. "Neuroscience and the Soul." Philosophia Christi Issue 15:1, Winter 2013.
(La Mirada, CA: The Evangelical Philosophical Society, 2013.) 13.
2. Moreland, J.P. The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism.
(London: SCM Press, 2009). 24.
3. Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Neo-Darwinian Conception of the World is Almost Certainly False.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.) 7.
4. Ibid. 42.

Science and Religion Resources

Just recently, I received a request for content that deals with the supposed war between science and religion. That topic is very wide, but it is also one I have been speaking and writing on fairly regularly. As I pulled some of these resources together, I thought that it may benefit my readers, too.

While this isn’t all of the content that may be associated with that topic, it is a good sampling across the different media. Enjoy!

Web Site Articles

• How is the Universe winding down?
• The Christian Position on Cloning
• Does the Big Bang Contradict Creation?
• Does the Expanse of Space Argue Against the Importance of Man?

Podcasts:

• Science, God, and Knowing
• Separating Science from Scientism

Blog posts:

• Belief in God is the motor that drove science
• Why the law of gravity cannot create the universe
• Science is founded on faith as much as religion

Series on Science versus Scientism:

• Science versus its evil twin: Scientism
• Scientism rejects philosophy as a form of knowledge
• Science owes a debt to theology
• Science vs. Scientism: Scientism refuses to have its authority challenged

Jesus as God and Man

Christians at Christmas celebrate Jesus becoming the incarnate Son of God. But exactly how can God be a man? Does this mean God is limited to a certain time and place? In our most recent podcast series, we explored the humanity and divinity of Jesus and how both are crucial to his role as Messiah. Listen below.

• Jesus as God and Man (Part 1)
• Jesus as God and Man (Part 2)
• Jesus as God and Man (Part 3)
• Jesus as God and Man (Part 4)