Stephen King and Jesus

Stephen King is one of my favorite writers, and religion plays a major role in his books. King's statements about Christianity, while unorthodox, are always interesting, at the least.

His opposition to Conservatives and his outspoken criticism of the church in the debate over homosexual marriage have certainly helped to distance him from Christian culture. However, he also makes some of the heroes in his books Christians (as well as some of the villains), making his position on the Faith not so obvious.

His statements about God can range from insightful (if you have faith in Jesus then you shouldn't need a cross to fight a vampire, for example) to heretical (musing that something greater than God might be the real power behind the universe). Of course, these are just the thoughts of his characters, not King, himself. It's also worth noting that his Christian readers are always impressed with his Biblical knowledge.

His recent statements about God can be read at Think Christian's latest post. and I thought it might be interesting for any of you King fans out there. Enjoy. (No, I won't tell you what he said. You have to click on the link.)

Universal Church, Universal Salvation?

I was on vacation last week, so I missed the hubbub on facebook and the internet in general that resulted when the Huffington Post released an article on Pope Francis's mass last Wednesday. The article featured this compelling headline:

"Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics"

This headline was in response to these head-scratching words from the Pope:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! (from Radio Vatican -- read more)

As expected, blog-rolls and facebook feeds lit-up with claims and questions about whether or not Pope Francis is a universalist. Some compared him to Rob Bell. David Gibbons from Charisma news says that the Pope is not endorsing universalism; rather, Gibbons says, "Francis was only affirming the doctrine that Christ redeemed the whole world. Whether people accept that belief is another matter." This blogger provides a helpful, brief history of the subject of universalist and inclusivist beliefs in the church. (I encourage you to read it if you'd like to know more) and compares the Pope to C.S. Lewis.

I think both of the linked articles, above, are helpful in thinking through the Pope's remarks. However, what many seem to miss is the main point of Pope Francis's sermon. According to Radio Vatican, the main goal of the sermon was to endorse not universal salvation but universal peace through the creation of a "culture of encounter" in which everyone -- Atheist, Muslim, and Catholic alike -- contributes to peace through good works.  And it is helpful to read what the Pope said just after those controversial words quoted above. He went on to say:

...the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” It sounds to me like Pope Francis isn't talking so much about specific individual "salvation," but about the common grace available to all through Christ that enables everyone to display God's image, however fractured that may be. It seems like Pope Francis is affirming that as humans created in God's image, we each have the ability to pursue peace and do good (albeit imperfectly), and that, Pope Francis says, is the basis for peace in the world.

I encourage you to read the rest of the Pope's remarks for yourself at the Radio Vatican website.

More Gays Are Coming Out of the Closet - As Christians

It's downright fashionable for some people to hate Christianity, and in the same circles people have a tendency to make a big show about embracing homosexuals, so it's no surprise that gays can have a
tough time going to church.

What will their friends think? Will their family look at them differently? Will they still be accepted at the same parties when their socialite friends realize that they have to leave early to get to mass the next morning?

Not to mention, it's pretty stressful to visit a church and not know if you will be accepted, or thrown out.

Of course, there have always been homosexuals in our churches, but they were living "in the closet," conveniently hiding their sexual orientation and acting like they weren't different. Things have changed. Now, openly gay couples are calling up pastors and asking a question that the church has been avoiding for a long time: Can I join your church if I'm living as a gay person?

I'm not going to tell you how to feel about homosexuality in this post, but I will tell you that it's our job to welcome everyone who comes to our churches. People go to church to find God, and we won't get anywhere by closing the door on them.

2.5 Kids and a Dog

When I moved to Texas from Oregon for graduate school I quickly realized everyone else knew someone and I did not.  I believed the myth that once people are 18 they should be independent of family and that needing solid connections to a community wasn't that important. Soon I realized that even people who moved for school from other far away places seemed to know someone -- a relative, a friend or their parent had gone to school in the area years ago and had connections.

I also experienced working in an environment where I met several people from other countries.  It struck me that they didn't move to America by themselves.  They all had cousins, siblings or someone.  Was I the only person in all of Texas living there 'alone'?

This, among further research in a variety of topics, really started me on a track thinking about how and why we define a household the way we do in America.  The status quo states that one should move out of their parent's house about 18 or 19, perhaps get a bit of education, get married, get working and have a few babies and poof -- nuclear (perfect?) family.

When I state it that way most people understand it doesn't make sense and doesn't usually work that way.  Most people also feel that society in general purports this as truth, especially in Christian circles.

I believe breaking down the myth of nuclear families actually gives us a great place to start talking about a wide variety of topics that Christians deem as major issues -- divorce, singleness, cohabitation, abortion, gay marriage, working moms and the list can go on.

I just read an article from 1994 titled, "The Transformation of American Family Structure" by Steven Ruggles from the American Historical Review.  The article shows that after World War II a major shift to not living in multigenerational households has occurred.  His conclusion, which I didn't expect, says that the rise of the independent spirit seems the cause for this transition.

The article also brings up, usually as side comments, a variety of other ideas I never thought about.  For instance, when looking at if communities promote multigenerational households you need to factor in how many children parents typically bear, since generally only one of the children's households could be multigenerational.  (Parents only live with one child.)  He also shows historically that if parents have financial means children would stay in the household, not the parent moving in with the child because of old age like we often think of today.  Another comment mentions how many other cultures promote living with siblings but that has never been the case in America.

This briefly starts to touch on why the idea that a nuclear family -- husband, wife, 2.5 kids and a dog -- may not be the historical or even ideal household structure.  I'd love to hear comments from you about living arrangements you've seen that work or if you're from another culture how it works in your culture.  Please stay on topic.

In my last post I mentioned Sociological Images -- my new favorite blog.  They have a couple articles on this topic I thought I'd share with you:

-- How Do We Define a Family?
This article looks at a survey asking Americans if they define themselves as a family.
-- What is a Family?
This article uses as it's starting point an image from an Ikea parking lot.

"To remind you of things that are true"

This year for Lent, instead of giving something up, I added something. (Didn't know you could do that, did you?) Yesterday was Pentecost, so why am I talking about Lent again? Because the habit I picked up during Lent... I've kept! (It's helpful to focus on a new habit for 47 days with a bunch of other folks united by One Spirit.)

During Lent I wanted to start devotional reading, something I admittedly hadn't done in a long time. I tried out a few different readings, but I landed on one that I originally bought for my cousins' children---Sally Lloyd-Jones's Thoughts to Make Your Heart Sing. This 101-readings devotional is written and illustrated by the same folks who crafted the widely celebrated Jesus Storybook Bible. And just like the JSB, it's beautifully illustrated, exceedingly well-written, plugged into the overarching narrative of Scripture, and spiritually and theologically enriching... for grownups just as much as for kids.

One of the great things about Thoughts to Make Your Heart Sing is that the readings are really, really short! Good children's literature is very much like good poetry in the sense that every word counts. With economy and simplicity we do not lose depth or power, and short, single-focused readings leave me with more energy to contemplate, meditate, remember, pray.

Another great thing about this book is that it encourages us not to take ourselves too seriously, or put pressure on ourselves to be "super-spiritual." It's a devotional, a testimony of faith, that hasn't lost its sense of humor. Adult devotionals are often heavy and serious. There are times for seriousness, but the joy of pure laughter is an essential part of what it means to "let Thy kingdom come." A part of our calling to be "like these little children" includes not taking ourselves too seriously. Reading through this children's devotional has helped me do this in my own life.

I don't know about you, but it's really easy for me to get into ruts. Thoughts to Make Your Heart Sing has helped me think outside the box and engage from a different angle, and so I wanted to pass it along.

I'll leave you with one of my favorites:

Copyright Sally Lloyd-Jones
[click to enlarge]

"Satisfy us each morning with your unfailing love, so we may sing for joy to the end of our lives." PSALM 90:14 (NLT)

Three Questions I Have Now That the Gosnell Trial is Over

The Gosnell Trial has ended, with Dr. Gosnell receiving a life sentence for killing three new-born babies (and for some frightening medical malpractice). It's a horrible ordeal; never before have I actually avoided those links that say "WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT," but, for once, I decided there were pictures I didn't want to see.

So, I'm left with a few things on my mind.


When Does a Baby Receive Human Rights?

I realize that my Liberal friends hate this argument, but I can't shake it: why is it legal to put an infant do death in utero, but not a few minutes after it's born? Isn't it the same child? I would prefer that we adopt a policy of believing that all life is precious.


Why Don't Parents Exercise Other Options?

I've never understood this. Gosnell was known for performing abortions for women who were desperate - sometimes doing the operation for free. Some saw this as an act of charity and called him a hero.

It's true that some people are unable to raise a child, and unplanned pregnancies are extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean that abortion is the "only choice." Many children, like me, were adopted as babies due to similar circumstances. When the mother's life is not in danger, why should we consider ending the baby's life?


Why Was Gosnell able to do This?

Gosnell had been at this for a long time - since the 90s. He ran a practice that disregarded the health of mothers while claiming he was doing them a favor. Anyone looking at his record would have been horrified to be on his operating table, and he should have been shut down long before his arrest, but he was able to continue his practice because the authorities in Philadelphia did not do their jobs. In 2011, it was discovered that 14 abortion clinics in Philadelphia had not been visited by the health department in fifteen years. Here's what they found when they resumed those inspections:

"...not performing or documenting monitoring of blood pressure, pulse and oxygen levels...not examining tissue from all first-trimester abortions, as required, to see if the women were pregnant...equipment was found that was well past expiration date...also found was an unlabeled bag of blue pills and practices that raised patient confidentiality concerns."

And Gosnell's place was the worst of the bunch.

I'll be asking myself these questions for a long time. I think all human life is precious, and I don't understand why we can be so cavalier about doing this.

Some American Constitutions are Christian Documents

In my last post, I made the case that the United States Constitution is clearly not a Christian document.  The framers of the government and the document in 1787-1789 purposefully crafted this sort of document, complete with the disestablishment of all churches and the promise of religious freedom.

But that was for the nation, and for the national Congress.  The story of the state constitutions is a very different story.  From the 1770s through the 1790s, leaders in every state (not every leader) came together to craft state constitutions which in some way, aimed at creating specifically Christian societies.  Here are some of the ways they did this:

Established Churches
The state constitutions of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire all established a particular religious denomination as the official religion of the state.  Essentially (although the laws could get very convoluted), this meant that if you were a resident of the state, part of your taxes went toward supporting this denomination.  The State of Massachusetts was the last state to finally disestablish the state-supported church.  It did this in 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

Limited Religious Freedom and Toleration
Every state which did not officially establish a Christian denomination still limited freedom and toleration in some way.  Pennsylvania required that all citizens believe in God.  North Carolina's "Declaration of Rights" promised freedom of religion, so long as it was "to worship Almighty God" (This article pointed out an attempt a few weeks ago in North Carolina to return to something like this, and the Washington Post's poor coverage of it).  The 1777 Constitution of South Carolina stated that all people would be "freely tolerated," as long as they "acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshiped."

Religious Tests for Public Office
While the U.S. Constitution specifically barred religious tests, many states specifically required them.  Almost every state required that elected officials profess a belief in the God of Christianity.  Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Vermont required officials to believe in the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.  North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, and New Hampshire required members of the state legislature, judges, and governors to be Protestants.  Ironically, most of these constitutions contained the promise that "no further religious test" would ever be required of anyone - except, of course, for the religious test they just had to take.

Religious Tests for Voting
Some states even required religious tests for citizens who wanted to vote.  Pennsylvania only granted civil rights like voting to those who acknowledged "the being of a God."  South Carolina required a belief in God and in "the future states of rewards and punishments."  And don't forget, in most every place, voting was already restricted to property-owning white males.

So What?
All of this information puts the national, constitutional calls for the free exercise of religion and disestablishment of churches in the 1780s in a fascinating context.  Some American leaders in the 1780s were stalwart on the issues of disestablishment and the separation of church and state in the national Constitution because they were such strong proponents of religious freedom.

But many leaders were bent on clarifying the language of the Constitution on religion not because they wanted a nation or government without church influence, but because they wanted the national government to be limited in its religious power.  With that settled, they could return to their states, and state constitutions, in order to exert precisely that power.

So Christians, as you have conversations about the issues surrounding the role of religion in our constitutions, laws, or history, keep in mind that these are historically complex issues.  You should seek answers, and you should take stands.  But you should base it on the varied history of the role religion in American life and laws, not based on a God-and-country caricature of it.


Helpful Links
Constitutions
You can find the early constitutions of all the states, territories, and nation in the multivolume book "The Federal and State Constitutions," freely available on Google Books.  Click here for a link to one of these volumes.

Books and Articles
David Sehat, The Myth of American Religious Freedom
John Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
Thomas Kidd, God Of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution
Benjamin Park, "North Carolina's 'Official Religion': The Convoluted History of American States and Established Religions

On the Distinction between Analytic and Continental Philosophy

            For those outside of the discipline, the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy may seem trivial. After all, both traditions explore many of the same philosophical problems and often examine the same primary texts. But while the two each strive to clarify our knowledge of the world and our human nature, they carry out these projects with the aid of different intellectual toolsets. In applying these different tools to the same questions, analytic and continental philosophers yield distinct types of knowledge. As we’ll learn, one tradition tends to complement the other, but in some cases the subject matter dictates a specific approach that favors either analytic or continental methods.

Continental Philosophy

            The older of the two traditions, continental philosophy incorporates the philosophical subfields of metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics. The majority of its practitioners reside in continental Europe, where during the late 18^th century Immanuel Kant inaugurated the tradition that became known as German Idealism. His Critique of Pure Reason attempted to provide a solution to the skeptical empiricism of David Hume and founded a school of epistemology that remains influential today.

            Kant and his intellectual successor Hegel indulged in highly abstract metaphysical speculation about the fundamental foundations of our knowledge of the world. They attempted to construct all-encompassing systems that subsumed disparate fields of philosophy under one meta-narrative, and their scope was comprehensive in that they believed philosophy could function as the explanatory cornerstone of human experience.

            In the 19^th century, continental philosophers responded to the apparent disparity between the advances of science and philosophy by rejecting the ambitious extravagancies of Kant and Hegel. Thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche scoffed at the notion that philosophy could neatly embody the principles of every field of learning and became suspicious of systematic attempts to formalize human experience. Out of their influence emerged the existentialism of Sartre and Camus in the early 20^th century.

            While the priorities of continental philosophy changed over time, much of its style and basic tools remained intact. Works by the early German Idealists and Kierkegaard and Nietzsche share stylistic traits that distinguish them from analytic philosophy. Both engage in prose that sacrifices formal rigor in an effort to convey abstract meaning. Much of 19^th and 20^th century continental philosophy reads more like literature than philosophy, at least by analytic standards, and it's true that the continental thinkers are typically more dynamic stylistically than analytic philosophers. For the continental philosophers, language does not function as a rigid set of symbols conveying strict denotations, but rather as a malleable instrument by which to explore the boundaries of human comprehension.

Analytic Philosophy

            Against this perception, the analytic philosophers of the United Kingdom and the United States attempt to limit their usage of language to demonstrably logical statements about the world. Originating in the early 20^th century with works by Bertrand Russell, G.E. More and Ludwig Wittgenstein the analytic school of philosophy views the abstract indulgences of the continental tradition as complicating our knowledge of things by introducing confusing language that is ultimately devoid of meaning.

            Philosophers should, they argue, limit themselves to logically verifiable statements of the world that can provide reliable knowledge. By employing formal predicate logic, analytic thinkers attempt to validate their achievements with a rigor rivaling that of the natural sciences and mathematics. The prevalence of this methodology reached a peak in logical positivism, whose practitioners insisted that all philosophical statements must derive from either empirical observations or analytic tautologies.

            But logical positivism, it turned out, couldn’t meet its own strict criteria for justification and essentially died out by the late 20^th century. There was nothing logically necessary about its rules for valid statements, nor did empirical observation provide warrant for believing those rules to be fundamental. As a result, positivism has all but disappeared.

            Other less dogmatic forms of analytic philosophy are practiced throughout the English-speaking world, and the tradition remains the dominant school of philosophy in Western universities. Analytic philosophers employ formal logic to reveal inconsistencies and errors in arguments that otherwise appear plausible, and have contributed a great deal to our understanding of how language often functions not to communicate objective facts, but to reinforce our prejudices.

           

Application

            To illustrate the relative strengths of the analytic and continental approaches, let’s consider a particular set of philosophical problems. The philosophy of religion is concerned with the philosophical underpinnings of religious claims, such as arguments for the existence of god, god’s attributes, the problem of evil and the existence of the soul. Let’s briefly consider how the analytic and continental traditions handle the question of god’s existence.

            The analytic school employs logic and linguistic analysis to determine whether the claim “god exists” has any significant meaning. Does such a statement consider the actual conditions of the universe, or does it represent an emotional response to subjective experiences that cannot be verified empirically? Christian philosophers in the analytic tradition such as Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne have used logic to argue that such statements are in fact coherent claims about the universe and warrant our consideration.

            Continental philosophers will employ a different approach to the same question. Free from the formal strictures of the analytic school, continental philosophers can indulge in metaphysical speculation to explore the broader implications of the statement “god exists.” How might god’s existence shape our theories of beauty and justice? In questions where formal logic offers little insight, continental approaches reveal stimulating avenues of inquiry. The orthodox theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart is a contemporary practitioner of continental philosophy of religion.

            This brief overview of the two dominant schools of Western philosophy cannot cover the many subtle distinctions or subfields within each tradition. They are broad disciplines that incorporate diverse approaches, but our characterization clarifies the fundamental differences between them and gives at least a general indication of their respective merits. 

Praying with Billy Joel

For someone who loves 70s singer-songwriters, I am sorely deficient in my knowledge of Billy Joel. I mean, I can sing along to "Piano Man" in a heartbeat, but that's as far as it goes. So when "Only the Good Die Young" came on the radio the other day, I turned it up, hoping to further my Billy Joel education. At first I was disappointed. After the first few lines, I thought I had the song pegged as a an anti-church cliche with a little bit of Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress" thrown in:

Come out Virginia, don't let me wait.
You Catholic girls start much too late.
Aw, but sooner or later it comes down to fate.
I might as well be the one.

Well, they showed you a statue, told you to pray.
They built you a temple and locked you away.
Aw, but they never told you the price that you pay
for things that you might have done.
Only the good die young.

But I kept listening, and I'm glad I did, because of this line in the bridge:

You say your mother told you all that I could give you was a reputation
She never cared for me
But did she ever say a prayer for me? 

Wait a second -- did Billy Joel just remind me of an important truth about prayer? I think he did.

According to Wikipedia, Billy Joel has said that "...the point of the song wasn't so much anti-Catholic as pro-lust," but it is also, in its own way, pro-love as well, since praying for someone is a good way to learn how to love them. The song reminded me of this article, in which a man with opposite political views of President Obama learns to love him just through the habit of praying for him. It reminded me of how it only takes a second to pray for that person who overshares personal information in the facebook feed for me to begin to care about that person and their otherwise "TMI" statuses. It reminded me of how I'm a better friend and family member when I remember to pray for the important people in my life. When I do, suddenly my excuses about being too busy to write or call seem silly; when I pray for them, I start to love them better. And as the song suggests, praying for someone is a good way to stop judging them as well. So thanks, Billy Joel, for that lesson -- I better catch up on your body of work just to see what else you have to tell me!

Why would a loving God let so many bad things happen?

In a recent post, I presented three questions I've heard young people ask--people who think highly of Jesus and even seem to want to become Christians and follow Him, but worry they can't without sacrificing their rationality, their decency, or both. I addressed the first and second questions in my last three posts. Here is the third question:

Question 3: Why would a loving God let so many bad things happen?

This is the problem of evil, a problem as important as it is ancient. Boethius in The Consolation of Philosophy memorably compared this problem to a Hydra: Every time one version of it is dealt with, two more versions sprout up in its place.

I suspect that the biggest problem with evil is not that it is very hard to find answers to this question; answers are easy to find. The biggest problem is that evil hurts, and having a few answers doesn't automatically make it stop hurting.

But, as Boethius says, there is still a big problem with finding answers: While it is easy to find some, finding them all is a never-ending affair. So is articulating all the old answers perfectly. These are two reasons I will not pretend to answer Question 3 here, in a single blog post.


Boethius and Lady Philosophy discuss the problem of evil.
    Instead, I will do something better. I will point you to some places where some of the best answers are articulated. As God says in Time Bandits, "I think it has something to do with free will," but that's not all there is to it.

• Try Augustine's On the Free Choice of the Will or Confessions for the classic free will response to the problem of evil as well as Augustine's wonderful idea that evil does not exist (evil is, strictly speaking, a lack of good, not a thing that exists in itself).
• Try Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy for a very personal response to a very personal experience with evil. Boethius tackles the problem from several angles. (I made this short cartoon version of the story).
• Try C. S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain. Pain is God's "megaphone to rouse a deaf world." Also included in this edition: Lewis' own experience with suffering in A Grief Observed.
• If you dare tackle recent analytic philosophy, Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom, and Evil is a classic in the area.
• You could also try Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God by Marilyn McCord Adams, a Christian look at the really, really, really, really evil evils.

---

To sum up: There are good answers to this question, starting with free will. But you will have to do some studying if you really want to understand this issue.

---

To sum up my last four posts:

There are three big questions that keep people away from Christianity.

Question 1 is: Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution? And the answer is: Yes. (But you don't have to.)

Question 2 is: Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus? Maybe the best answer to this is another question: Who says God does?

Question 3 is: Why would a loving God let so many bad things happen? And the answer is: There are reasons. Maybe you can't understand all of them perfectly, but you can understand a little bit. If you really want to understand it all, you will have do some studying.

Studying History is Important, After All

The retired professor started his lecture by saying that it was going to be his last lecture - ever. He was finishing his career before us, and he started with this story:

"A student once asked me, 'What is history going to do for me when I graduate,' and I said, 'No!  Don't ask 'what can it do for me later, but ask, What will history do to me before I graduate.'"

I loved it. People have been criticizing the humanities a lot, these days, and it would be a shame if we forgot the importance of studying our past, our art, and our culture.

And, yes, it does have practical value. Did you know that economics is a humanities course? Not only that, but it's best understood alongside history. How about Philosophy? It sounds like a useless major, but did you know that Plato's Republic, the cornerstone of Western philosophy, is a book that is (mostly) about how a state can be run justly? (If I were ever on trial for a crime I didn't commit, it would make me glad to know that the judge had read Plato.) An understanding of ethics and righteous law-making is central to western philosophy in every century, so a politician, lawyer, or activist will most definitely benefit from having a background in philosophy.

Don't forget that students of the humanities must usually learn a foreign language, or two. Americans are often criticized for not knowing other languages, and its the humanities students who are required to break this mold.

But what about history; does it matter? Imagine a diplomat who hadn't studied international history, or a governor who did not know how his state was founded. It's important that the leaders of our communities and nations understand our own past and the cultures that surround us. This sort of thing is learned in history classes.

The Christian community has learned the importance of this; as our culture drifts further and further away from antiquity, we need linguists and historians to help us understand the context in which the Bible was written. Church history is also a difficult subject that only makes sense when we know how the old world worked - something that is impossible without the humanities.

On a more "everyday" level, I think that most people appreciate the humanities more than they realize. Have you ever enjoyed a Ken Burns documentary, or a History Channel special on the pyramids? What are you going to do with that? How is a documentary about Jazz going to help you sell auto parts, or design software? It won't, but the enlightenment that comes from such understanding is valuable.

Then again, maybe these things are more practical than we think. Humanities courses teach us critical thinking skills, because each text/document/piece of artwork requires deep study to comprehend fully. Someone who has taken the time to really understand the Magna Carta in its historical context is someone who can apply that problem-solving skill to whatever field they decide to work in. A successful humanities student is not just someone who has memorized a set of obscure dates and stories, but they've learned to think around corners and solve complex problems alongside some of the world's most celebrated thinkers. That is not a useless skill.