Charting 125 Years of Christian Change

One of the more interesting tools on the internet is Google's Ngram Viewer.  It allows you to search words and phrases through about 500 years of book history.  You select your phrase, tell it the time-frame you want, and it will search all the books Google has scanned into the system's repertoire.  I decided to put it to the test with some Christian phrases and found a several interesting results.

Going into this I thought I could guess how these would chart, but always ended up wrong. All the charts show a drop in use of Christian terms between about 1930 and 1980.  Before and after those years, there are some significant changes also but nothing so apparent.

A few technical notes to add --  I used the category "English" which combines both British and American sources.  Also, the Ngram Viewer only goes up to the year 2008 so all of the charts are based off of that year, and 125 years back.  I had to shrink down the charts to get them to fit on the blog, so I apologize the years are jumbled at the bottom.  I included above each graph the years that are represented.

I hope you gain some insight.  Please post in the comments anything you see in these charts.

ON HEAVEN AND HELL:

I find it interesting that "heaven" tracks, for most of this chart, higher than "hell" especially since the word "hell" is often used in other phrases or slang sayings.  (For instance the phrase, "go to hell", peaks in the 1930s.) The early 1990s are the only time that "hell" is actually more prevalent than "heaven".

125-year-trend: 1883-2008:

  Zoomed-in to 1970-2008:

ON CHURCH AND JESUS:

You can see two things easily from this chart.  The Ngram Viewer is case-sensitive, so I entered both "church" and "Church".  It makes the results more interesting.  The non-capitalized version of church is now much more prominent than it once was, seemingly representing our more casual writing styles and views of church.

The next thing easily seen is that the term "Jesus" is now as prominent as the word "church".  (Although, if you combine both forms of capitalization "church" still beats Jesus.)  It is hard to see on the chart below but "Jesus" actually was ahead of "church" between 2002 and 2007.  This shows a major shift in our overall thinking of how we view Jesus and church interacting with Christianity.

125-year-trend: 1883-2008:


Zoomed-in to 1958-2008:

THE HOLY SPIRIT VS. THE FATHER

On this graph I pit "the Holy Spirit" against "the Father".  Before charting this I thought that "the Holy Spirit" would grow continually throughout the 20th century since Pentecostalist revivals started early in the century.  Instead we see a decline until about 1940 in both terms and then see some growth.  In the 1970s you see "the Holy Spirit" growing faster than "the Father" which, if I had to guess, would attribute to the growth of the Calvary Chapel and Vineyard movement.

125-year-trend: 1883-2008:
 

Zoomed-in to 1958-2008:

STUDY THE *

Below I've listed charts looking at the phrase "study the *".  The asterisk is a wildcard so the system filled the word in on it's own.  This chart shows a very interesting change in our collective thought process. Only two terms, "study the effect" and "study the history", appear in all the charts when broken into 25-year categories. Check-out the chart at the bottom comparing those terms with rise and fall of "study the Bible".

On the 1933-1958 and 1958-1983 charts "study the Bible" does not appear at all.  On the 1908-1933 chart the phrase starts dropping but then makes a major jump to finish fourth on the 1983-2008 chart.

125-year-trend: 1883-2008:

Zoomed-in to 1883-1908: 

Zoomed-in to 1908-1933: 

Zoomed-in to 1933-1958: 

Zoomed-in to 1958-1983: 

Zoomed-in to 1983-2008:


The top terms:
Only two terms, "study the effect" and "study the history", appear in all the charts.  Here are those terms charted with "study the Bible" for the whole time period from 1883-2008.




----

Those are all the charts I have for now.  Please comment about any trends you catch or why you think some of this happened.  I think the current trends of Christianity are very different than what most of us have seen in our lifetimes.  It will be interesting to do these same charts in another 25 years!

Religion Vs. Relationship

Today some people prefer to say that they are spiritual but not religious. Some claim that Christianity is a relationship not a religion. Recent studies show that America is becoming “less religious.” These ideas lead me to two questions: First, is it really possible to be spiritual without being religious? Second, is it possible to be in a relationship with God without being part of a religion?

The idea of being a spiritual person is that one focuses on things pertaining to the soul as opposed to the physical world around us. Many religious beliefs have to do with the inner nature of humanity, not the physicality of a person; therefore, a spiritual person tends to frequently contemplate religious beliefs.

A religion is “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods” according to Webster’s Dictionary (I know not the most academic source, but it is a good basic definition). Someone who follows these beliefs, ceremonies, and rules would then be a religious person. (Note: Buddhism does not focus on a god or gods, but is typically considered a religion because of its organized belief system and the ceremonies and rules practiced by its followers.)

So if the studies are correct in affirming that people remain spiritual but less religious, it would seem that people contemplate the things of the soul, but do not allow those contemplations to alter how they live. Why is that?

Religion and religious people have gotten a bad name in recent times. Religion sounds rigid and structured, not free and exploratory. Many religious people have been proven to be false teachers and hypocrites—not just in Christianity…but especially in Christianity.

In our relativistic culture, people like to choose their own truth. This involves picking and choosing what aspects of faith they want to accept and practice. Some people reject certain claims of the Bible or write them off as archaic.

This brings us back to the original two questions; can someone be spiritual without being religious? Yes, it would seem that one can so long as the person does not fit into traditional religious molds. However, this new spirituality has a relativistic structure. Because it rejects and accepts some practices it creates an amalgamated idea of who God is.

This brings us to our second and more important question; can people have a relationship with God without being part of a religion? To this question, I would argue that they cannot. Why? Because religion is necessary for defining who God is. Without it, we cannot really know much at all about the being we claim to know.

Is religion doomed? Is religion so legalistic and rigid that it is no longer relevant or needed? Absolutely not, when practiced with integrity religion can lead people into deeper spirituality that will alter how someone lives. But in order for this to happen, one must not get bogged down in the hypocritical practices rampant in churches today which foster the kinds of legalism that kill the spiritual life of a congregation.

To put it differently, one cannot accept religion in a piecemeal fashion. Doing so undermines the authoritative practices of any faith. Accepting part of the Bible is like accepting part of who God is but rejecting part of who he is at the same time. To be truly spiritual, to walk in a relationship with God, one must know the practices (beliefs, ceremonies, and rules) of a faith. These practices become a map for leading people into a deeper faith enhancing the person’s relationship with God.

Four Things We Can Learn About Evangelism (From a Church that is Doing it Wrong)

An old friend who works in a music store sent me this story:

I was asked by one of my customers if I would be the music minister at the Church he pastors. (This was out of the blue one day.) I told him that I was not interested, but thanked him for the offer. He asked why I wasn't interested. I told him that I am an atheist. He began to tell me that I wasn't an atheist and all the reasons why I wasn't. I did my best and held my ground without being rude. (I was working at the time and being rude to a customer is just plain wrong.) 

It gets worse. This pastor finally left - but he sent members of his congregation by every few days to pester this guy about his atheism through arguments. Eventually, his boss at the store (who is a Christian) asked these people to knock if off. For believers who oppose rude evangelism, this sort of thing is embarrassing.

"Today, we launch project 'Annoy That Guy At The Music Store'. Ah, I love the smell of freshly printed tracts in the morning - it smells like victory!"

Here are some points that I want to stress about evangelism:

• As my pastor recently said, "People should not be treated like projects." Jesus can be represented by showing people love - not by bickering.
• Arguments are fruitless. I don't know any believer who ever said, "I became a Christian after someone repeatedly shoved anti-atheist arguments down my throat." That's never how it works, so find another approach.
• Representing Christ on Earth means emulating His humility and compassion. Sure, He had to argue with religious leaders over fine points - but He did not seek out these religious arguments.
• This one is important - Jesus let people go. When people didn't understand Him and decided to leave He didn't argue with them. We should show as much respect to others. He did not harass them into coming back. This doesn't mean giving up, it just means being respectful. Bickering with someone to the point of making them angry means that they will never want to talk to you again.

I'm not trying to put a muzzle on evangelists; I am trying to direct our efforts in a loving fashion. An old friend of mine liked to remind us that it's not clever marketing or annoying evangelism that will show people the greatness of God - it's love. People are hurting and need to be loved.

Eleven Questions You Can Stop Asking Childless Couples. (With Responses.)

My wife and I aren't interested in having children. This never seemed like a big deal, to me, but it's an earth-shattering idea for some people, who lose their minds and start interrogating us like we're screenwriters in the 1960s who accidentally sympathized with communism.

Here's some things you can stop saying to us:


1 - "Why do you hate kids?"

I don't. I'm involved in the lives of children and I think that they are some of the most important people in my life. It's nonsense to assume I don't like children just because I'm not having any of my own.

2 - "Have you asked your wife how she feels about that?"

No, I haven't. I decided we wouldn't have kids without informing her, or even asking her opinion, and she stays perpetually confused about her barrenness. Is that a problem?

Of course, this is a decision to be made as a couple. We discussed this at length while we dated, as any responsible people would do. What sort of monster do you think I am?

3 - "How are you going to avoid having kids?"

This one always makes me pause. In my experience, successfully using birth control is about as difficult as falling down a flight of stairs on roller skates while blindfolded. People like to ask this question, though, with wide, empty eyes as if they truly don't understand. They must think I'm a wizard. Do I really need to explain how this is possible?



4 - "What if you have kids, anyway?"

I'm not sure what people are looking for, with this one. If we get surprised with a child, then...I guess we would have a kid. Is there something else they expect me to say? Maybe people think I haven't considered this possibility, but I have. Any scenario you can come up with is something we have already thought about. The possibility that we might unexpectedly have kids doesn't mean we should change our plans.


5 - "I know people who said they would never have kids...and they did! I think you'll be just like them!"

That's adorable.

6 - "Who's going to take care of you when you're old?"

Robots, probably.

Did you have kids because you wanted to make them responsible for your well-being? Of course not. That's a selfish thing to do, and procreating just to have servants when I'm elderly is a strange idea. You haven't thought this question through.


7 - "Doesn't the Bible say that people should have kids."

No, it doesn't. Believe it, or not, as a licensed minister who studies theology and church history in grad school, I've considered that possibility. I'm planning to have as many kids as  the Apostle Paul, C.S. Lewis, St. Francis, Mother Teresa, and Rich Mullins - combined.

8 - "Why don't you just try having kids and see how you like it."

Now, you're scaring me. You don't "try" being a parent. It's not as if I can return a kid to a store, is it? People know this (I hope), but still ask me to give parenting a test drive by just having one kid. Being a parent is an all or nothing decision.

9 - "You shouldn't say 'never,' because you never know what God's going to do."

You just said "never."

(People say this exact sentence to me, all the time.)

10 - "Are you unable to have kids? Did the doctor say you were sterile? Is your wife the problem? Do you have trouble with...you know..."

Step back.

I know you'll have a hard time understanding this, but those are personal questions that should only be asked by close friends, family members, and anyone who's first name is "doctor." Otherwise, these questions are absolutely inappropriate.

(And, no, it's none of those reasons.)

10 - "Did you have a bad experience as a kid that makes you afraid to be a father?"

No.

Believe it, or not, psychology is a very complex field that is not as simple as it looks on television. Ascribing my activities to personal problems is beyond your capability. Cut it out.

11 - "You Will" (Said with a smug smile.)

 Everyone said this when we got married, because as soon as someone is hitched people are required to ask them about having children as soon as possible. "We're not planning to have any," I would say. "You will," they would respond. No, I didn't.

12 - "But...Children are a blessing!"

So is martyrdom. I don't see you lining up for that one.

St. Sebastian

Martyrdoms: 2

Diapers changed: 0

How a Local Church Taught Me to Love Music Again

I'll never forget the first time I played a guitar. I was hanging out in the school band hall when my buddy, Jake, found a long, rectangular box in one of the practice rooms and found a guitar inside. He started playing and I immediately begged him to teach me. We started hanging out in that practice room every day, making music and rocking out. The ability to create moods and ideas with these instruments was our journey and we never looked back.

I knew that I wanted to make music for the rest of my life. My band director had helped me to become a darned good trumpet player, and by the time I was in high school I found myself pouring over music theory books and learning to play every instrument I could get my hands on. (Yes, there are some people who will read a theory book like it's Harry Potter.)

Reality came crashing into my life when I learned that there aren't many ways to make a living at music. The artists who are successful are the ones who can afford to market themselves, and if you don't look like a model you quickly learn that no one cares about your art. (The picture I've attached should easily demonstrate why I'm not a household name.)

The people who run the music labels are not concerned with making quality music, preferring to give pre-written songs to good-looking people that they parade around like in front of cameras. It's worse for the ladies; the entertainment industry is entirely dependent on its ability to exploit young girls, and few women become celebrities without taking off their clothes.

I also noticed that no one liked music the way I did. The crowds wanted celebrities and dance parties, not six strings and the truth. It dawned on me that computer work was my future, not music, and that it didn't matter if I was any good, because no one wanted to hear what I had to offer. To put it bluntly, no one cares about music. (Don't believe me? Ask someone who their favorite guitar player is. Most people can't think of one.)

Then I found a small church that needed an electric guitar player and wanted to know if I could help. It was exactly what I needed. I spent weeks designing and building a new pedal board and proudly played my semi-hollow body Epiphone with the church band. I added blues solos to songs that obviously needed them, and my groovy, psychedelic effects transformed boring songs into deep meditations. I was playing my overdriven guitar as loudly as I could, and the congregation loved it.

I had to move on, but my next church (where I'm currently serving) had even more challenges for me. Musicians love challenges. I have sat at the piano and found new melodies for old songs, and I've brought my mandolin on stage to bring an upbeat, old-style feel to familiar music. These days, I'm usually playing the bass, an instrument that can change the course of a service with a single note, and looking down a that instrument I am easily reminded of how I felt when I first picked up a guitar.

In our most recent Christmas season, we worked hard to create dark, somber music that brought out the intense feelings of longing so we could remember our need for redemption. Shaping songs like this is exactly why I fell in love with music, and church is the only place where I've ever been asked to do it.

I'm not a celebrity, and I don't make any money with my songs, but I do have a regular music gig that's incredibly fulfilling. Every week I play to a captive audience as we explore music, together, in a way that leads us to a better understanding of God. I no longer consider myself a frustrated musician, because I found what I was looking for on a small, local stage.

(For the curious, my friend Jake - the one who taught me to play - has an interesting story you may want to read.)

Feminism: The Other F-Word

I’m a Christian. And I’m a feminist. For lots of folks, those two identifiers seem incompatible, antithetical, an oxymoron.

Are those things supposed to go together?

A few years ago, I gave a presentation at an academic conference at my alma mater, a Christian university. As a part of my lecture, I used a research-based creative piece I wrote that engages with Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene by recasting its only female knight while striving to stay true to Spenser's original art as much as possible. My rewrite was feminist. The room was mostly occupied by people who know me well, friends and former professors, so I found myself throwing out the F-word rather casually and without caveat throughout my presentation.

Somewhere along the way, I noticed a few of the folks in the room looking concerned, possibly even a little upset, and it dawned on me that I needed to stop and make a caveat or two: I just realized I've been casually throwing around the F-word [insert shocked faces here], you know, feminism… the other F-word, and that’s because most of you know me well enough to know the kind of feminism I mean. But that’s a bit unfair to the rest of you in here because of the bad rap feminism gets in Christian circles. 

We don't use words like that around here, young lady!

I went on to explain myself: I like men [insert comic relief]. I don't think men are evil or the source of all the world’s problems. I don't think all men are raving, sexist morons. Quite the opposite. I get just as upset about commercials and sitcoms and throw-away comments from women that make men out to be helpless idiots and blundering cavemen as I do with ideology that makes women out to be, for example, either perfect angels or whorish devils with no room for messy, muddling humanity, as is the case with our text today. I’m an egalitarian, which sometimes requires feminist efforts to raise women up from the dehumanizing social scripts proliferated by men and women alike, and sometimes requires masculinist efforts to do the same for men.

I hope that was helpful in assuaging the furrowed brows in the room. I couldn’t quite tell. I had a time limit and had to move on. If I’d had all day, I would have challenged them not to shy away from feminist scholarship just because there are some toxic versions of feminism out there. In fact, good feminism must exist, if for no other reason, because bad feminism needs to be answered. [Golly that’s good! Oh right, that’s because I didn’t come up with it; CS Lewis did (read “philosophy” where I wrote “feminism”).]

You can read more about Mr Clive Staples in Aaron's lovely piece, Surprised by Failure.

I think it’s important that as Christians we develop habits of thinking that are nuanced, particularly in regard to those ideas that stir up our most vehement reactions, the ideas we like the least and the ones we feel most threatened by. I think this is happening more and more; nuance is often one of the good results of Postmodernism. (What!!? Isn’t “good Postmodernism” incompatible, antithetical, and an oxymoron? Case in point. But that’s another post for another day, and one that can probably be done better by some of my fellow TTC writers. Cough-cough, hint-hint…)

Feminism in it’s extreme forms is ugly and certainly incompatible with Christianity because it dehumanizes men (and women). Any sort of approach that seeks to, for example, oppress the oppressors is the product of our fallen nature (even if it’s understandable); it is the epitome of hypocrisy to say: It’s wrong to oppress us, so we’re gonna oppress you as punishment. However, I would encourage those who, for example, believe the Bible speaks conclusively about gender roles (and therefore consider feminism antithetical to Christianity) to consider the ways in which their feminist, or egalitarian, brothers and sisters are challenging that position. A helpful article in this vein called, “Gender Difference: Lose the Boxes,” appears on Sandra Ghland’s blog Aspire 2 Thinking that Transforms. Do I think this essay or a hundred like it are going to change anyone’s position? Not necessarily. But I’m less concerned with that than I am with the need for us as Christ-followers to discipline ourselves to think outside our boxes, whatever they may be, so that, among other things, we can be unified in our differences through Christ rather than divided by them, a division that thrills our Enemy and those most hostile to our faith. [I could just as easily make the same exhortation to egalitarians, but this is a feminist post after all. ;) ]

For a good starter on thinking through a middle way between extreme feminism and complete rejection of feminist efforts, I recommend Dorothy L. Sayers’s Are Women Human? It’s a little book comprised of two short, very readable (and rather witty) essays: one critiques Feminism, the other, the Church.

Let’s work together to de-vilify feminism. There really should be only one F-word… Foucault! [insert winking emoticon here]

Thoughtful Christian Discussion on Atheism

Below is a link to a Chapel video from Dallas Theological Seminary video called The New Atheism. The discussion is thoughtful and level-minded.  I find the advice for Christians, starting around the 20 minute mark, particularly interesting, as I am guilty of mean-spirited engagement with Atheist ideas.

I think the main take-away for Christians from this discussion should be a willingness to listen to other points of view, Atheist or otherwise, without arrogance or condescension.  I’ve found it difficult to express Jesus’ love while engaging in last-word contests.  

Dallas Theological Seminary:  The New Atheism

There's Nothing More Traditional than a Woman Who Brings Home the Bacon

People love to throw around the phrase "traditional family" when defending what they think is a long-standing practice of a single income family, but this household pattern is not as historically sound as is widely believed. There's nobility in sacrificing one's career to be a homemaker, but history tells us that there's nothing necessarily "traditional" about this.

(Before you get excited or angry you should know that I'm not pushing anyone's political agenda. Just the facts.)

After the first world war the U.S. economy was booming. One person could make enough money to feed an entire family, which sounds pretty great. Sadly, those days are long gone and many of today's families need both spouses, and maybe the kids, to get a job if they're going to pay the bills. (My wife and I have four jobs between the two of us, and we're not exactly shopping at fancy stores.)

This nostalgia we have for the 1950s has sometimes led us to think that these were better, simpler days, and if we returned to doing things that way then we would all be happier. I love nostalgia as much as anyone. (I study medieval history. For fun.) However, we can't depend on our love for the past to guide us through life. The truth is that the "Leave it to Beaver" family model isn't how things were always done.

I just read the life story of Margery Kempe, a medieval document that is probably the first English autobiography. Even though it's mostly about her spiritual life and her world travels, it also tells us a lot about the way women lived in the fifteenth century. While she was married, Margery invested her money in a brewery and a mill and ran those two businesses on her own. She managed her finances separately from her husband's and even bailed him out when he was in debt. Did I mention that they had fourteen children during all of this?

It's true that Western culture has been a Patriarchal one, but the idea of keeping women from working is not how it has worked. Until recent times, the idea of "going to work" would not have made sense. Work was part of your life if you wanted to eat, and it didn't involve going to an office. Women and men worked together to make ends meet throughout each day. That is traditional.

This might explain some things about the ideal woman who is described in the Bible. She manages finances, dispenses wisdom and instruction, and decides which land the family will invest in without the need to consult a husband. She is a decision maker as well as a caregiver.

The idea of "traditional" gender roles in marriage is a romantic ideal for many people, but it's not an accurate depiction of our culture's history. The past is filled with women who led armies and wrote important books with full support from the men in their lives. Plenty of families have benefited from having a stay at home spouse, but we should never assume that everyone is required to live that way. Following tradition means spouses working together to provide for a family, not blindly following nostalgia.

ru’mi-nate: to chew the cud; to muse; to meditate; to think again; to ponder

Here at Thinking through Christianity, we try to be a place that points to good art at the intersection of faith. We do this because imagination is crucial to Christianity and because art speaks to us about the world and ourselves, telling the Truth better than exposition.

Since 2006, our friends at Ruminate Magazine have been a beacon in the darkness that can all too often be Christianity and the Arts---both the fear of and subsequent disdain for contemporary "secular" art and the muck of mediocre "christian" art.

Allow me to let them tell you a little about themselves:

Ruminate is a quarterly magazine of short stories, poetry, creative nonfiction, and visual art that resonate with the complexity and truth of the Christian faith. Each issue is a themed forum for literature and art that speaks to the existence of our daily lives while nudging us toward a greater hope. Because of this, we strive to publish quality work accounting for the grappling pleas, as well as the quiet assurances of an authentic faith. Ruminate Magazine... was created by a group of fellow writers, artists, and believers who wanted a space for the thoughtful expressions of those who are nudged forward, backward, and sideways by faith in God.

Speak. Grapple. Nudge. This is art---life.

The magazine's most recent issue, "In Search of Song," includes a short story from my friend and colleague LaToya Watkins titled, "The Mother." As a means of giving props to LaToya and enticing you to check out the magazine for yourself, here's an excerpt:

The visits done died down a little bit now. Some still come. The rustlers like this on sitting in front of me. They still asking bout Hawk. Bout how he come to call hisself the Messiah. Bout who his daddy is, but I ain't got nothing for them.

I look out the window I keep my chair pulled up next to. Ain't no sun, just cold and still. Banjo lift his head up when he see my eyes on him, but it don't take him long to let it fall back on his paws. He done got his rope a little tangled up. Can't move too much with it like that, but he can breathe and lay down. He alright. I'll go out and work out the knot when I can--when this gal leave.

...

I move my eyes away from the window and put them on the girl. She got a long bird face and her teeth stick out a little too far for her tiny mouth. I can tell by the way the sides of her mouth drooping down, she ain't used to being in a place like mine. I don't want to make her feel more uncomfortable, so I don't say nothing bout the pregnant looking roach crawling slow up the wood-paneled wall behind her head.

"I reckon peoples be just like them trees, you see?" Her face blank. I can tell she don't see. "Everybody got a season to go through being ugly and naked." I laugh a little bit. 

"Yes, ma'am," she say. Then she sigh and let her eyes roll halfway round in the sockets. "We all have problems, but can we--"

"That enough heat on you?" I ask. "Can't never keep this old lean-to warm. That enough heat on you--" I stop myself from calling her "miss". I want to spank the back of my own hand. She younger than me. Probably bout by twenty years or more. Still, I want to make sure that the old electric heater sitting on the cracked and splintered floor near her feet humming is doing what it's supposed to do. Sometimes it blow cold air instead heat like it's supposed to. I want to make sure it ain't freezing her.

She look confused bout my question. Them lines in her head get deeper, and she start shaking her foot a little. She want her story for the paper. Want to find out if I think my son was God like them folks what was following behind him in Abilene. 

Are you hooked yet? Order your copy here.

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.

Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus?

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 question in my last two posts. Here is the second question:

Question 2: Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus?

(I've also heard some related questions, such as Why would God send anyone to hell? and Why would a loving God send me to hell just because I'm not convinced Christianity is true?)

A proper look at this issue requires a lot more than a blog post. But I can explain, rather briefly, one reason people who worry about this issue don't need to worry. That reason is that Christian theology doesn't necessarily say that the people they're concerned about–the ones who live and die without hearing the Gospel properly explained–are all going to hell.

There are different views on this sort of thing within the area of soteriology (the study of salvation). Here are two of the generic views:

Exclusivism: This is the view that there is one way to be saved, Jesus Christ, and that only those who follow Christ in this life will be saved.

Inclusivism: This is the view that there is one way to be saved, Jesus Christ, but that some who do not follow Christ in this life will nonetheless be saved through Him.

Obviously according to Inclusivism it is not the case that everyone who hasn't heard about Jesus goes to hell. This is the view of C. S. Lewis as well as the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church. So you can be a Christian and not even bother asking the question!

Of course, the really important question is: Will Cinnamon be there when I get to Heaven?
 

Different versions of Exclusivism are outlined in a very good little book by Robert Wittmer. One of these versions is Soft Exclusivism, the view that, to anyone who responds properly to general revelation (the sort of revelation Paul talks about in Romans 1), God will give sufficient special revelation (the sort of revelation God gives through Jesus, an aposle, or a prophet) to be saved. Now a Soft Exclusivist can be an optimist or a pessimist. An Optimistic Soft Exclusivist thinks this actually happens sometimes; a Pessimistic Soft Exclusivist thinks it never happens. Wittmer himself is a Pessimistic Soft Exclusivist. My old theology teacher William E. Bell, is an Optimistic Soft Exclusivist, and even thinks there is some, admittedly ambiguous, biblical evidence for this view.

Obviously, if Optimistic Soft Exclusivism is correct, then Question 2 is not a big deal: People don't go to hell just for not hearing about Jesus. People who respond to God's general revelation properly will hear enough about Jesus to be saved, and there are some such people.

---

To sum up: There are orthodox views in Christianity that implicitly deny there is even any need to ask Question 2!

---

To sum up my last three 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?

Evolution is a poor test for rationality

In my last 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.

The first question is: Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution? They seem to be reasoning that rational people accept evolution, but Christians don't accept evolution, and so Christians are not rational.

As I explained in my last post, Christians can accept evolution, and many do. But there's another problem with this reasoning. Many people have the idea that you must accept evolution if you're a reasonable person who has been properly informed of the evidence for it--that acceptance of evolution is a test for rationality.

But evolution is a very poor test of rationality. Let me explain.

This jacaranda tree has nothing to do with the topic of this post. But it's very pretty, isn't it?

You should know two things.

First, you should know that, in academic society, it is generally considered unacceptable to reject evolution.  Generally, in the academic circles I've traveled across America (admittedly, not that many), it is simply assumed that rational and well educated folk are evolutionists.

Second, you should also know that it is acceptable in academic society to be a theistic evolutionist. You can think God created life and still be considered rational, just as long as you think God used evolution to do it.

Now, one more bit of preliminary observation, and then in the next paragraphs I will finally get to the point. The case for evolution, like the case for most theories in science, is cumulative; you don't argue for it from a single piece of evidence; you argue that it is the best explanation of several different pieces of evidence. Now the evidence for evolution can be divided into two main categories. There is the evidence that life evolved, and there is the evidence that natural processes are sufficient to account for life on earth as we know it today. The first kind of evidence only supports the claim that it happened, while the second kind of evidence supports the claim that it happened in a certain way, that is, by natural causes. The first kind of evidence includes, but is not limited to, the fossil record. The second kind of evidence would include, for example, instances of natural selection at work creating changes in a species.

But therein lies the problem. A theistic evolutionist can believe that God, not natural processes alone, is responsible for the emergence of life on earth as we know it today. In other words, the entire second category of evidence for evolution has not convinced him. (Or else his doctrine of creation has an odd deistic region, since he thinks natural causes acted without guidance from God to create the species on earth today.)

But this leaves him with just the one category of evidence, which on its own is much less powerful than would be the evidence taken as a whole. His confidence in evolution is (or should be) proportionate to the evidence that it happened, not proportionate to the entire cumulative case for the theory of evolution.

These matters should really be discussed over tea.

---

To sum up: Theistic evolution is thought to be rational. But this means it is rational to reject one category of evidence for evolution, and this means that rejecting evolution itself is rational–or at least it is somewhat less irrational than is commonly thought.

To put it differently: If it really is rational to accept theistic evolution, then, since the evidence for evolution includes a category of evidence which does not convince a theistic evolution, it is rational to reject the overall conclusion that this evidence is supposed to support–or at least is less irrational than is commonly thought.

To put it still differently: If some people can rationally reject the second category of evidence for evolution, I don't see why other people should automatically be considered irrational just because they aren't convinced by the evidence that remains.

And if people who reject the theory of evolution altogether are irrational, then so are all the theistic evolutionists who reject one of the categories of evidence for evolution–or at least they are less rational than is commonly thought.

---

To sum up this post and my last post:

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.)

Questions 2 and 3 to be addressed in future posts.

Questions my students asked

Over a period of two years I spent many hours in my office at a liberal arts college in northwest Georgia talking with a variety of students who had signed up for my philosophy classes. Many students were not Christians but were very interested in spiritual matters. A number of these seemed to want to be Christians, but were held back by various questions.

Berry College

Here are the three questions that seemed to trouble them the most.

1. Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution?
2. Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus?
3. Why would a loving God let so many bad things happen?

---

These are extremely important questions.

If my students are indicative of what other young people in north America (not to mention the rest of the world) are thinking, they represent many millions who think very highly of Jesus and admire a great deal in Christianity but worry they can't become Christians without surrendering their rationality (Question 1), their decency (Question 2), or both (Question 3).

Fortunately, there is no need for them to worry. Over the next few weeks I will explain why, starting with the first question, which I will address in this post and the next.

One of the many questions my students didn't ask is "Have you ever eaten monkey brains?" (The answer is "no.")
(Picture attribution: Cara Chow (Charlotte1125). From here.)

---

Question 1: Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution?

As bloggers report, the tension between Christianity and evolution is a huge factor behind vast numbers of young folk abandoning their faith. Here is what they seem to be thinking:

Premise 1: All (or practically all) rational people accept that the species on earth today emerged through the process of evolution. a
Premise 2: No (or practically no) orthodox Christians accept that the species emerged through the process of evolution.
Conclusion: So no (or practically no) orthodox Christians are rational.

This is a good argument in that the premises provide very good support for the conclusion. The problem is that both premises are false.

The view that God used the process of evolution to create the species we see on earth today is called theistic evolution. Many orthodox Christians accept theistic evolution. I'm not aware of any very good reason for calling it a heresy.

(As is the case with inclusivism, whether or not theistic evolution is the correct view is, of course, a different question.) (If you want a test for orthodox Christianity, research the Nicene Creed and the primary heresy it refutes. Rejecting that heresy, Arianism, is a pre-requisite for orthodox Christianity.)

Another question they never asked me is, "Have you ever eaten fried flying termites?" (The answer is "Yes, several times. They taste somewhat like peanuts. But they don't look like this termite. Go here to see what they look like.")
(Picture attribution: Discott (talk). Picture from here.)

Of course, there are better and worse ways to be a theistic evolutionist. It's important to adhere to the authority of Scripture. A Christian who is a theistic evolutionist should be a Beth, not a Chris.

I'll address the second premise in my next post.

---

Update: Other posts in this series:
Evolution Is a Poor Test for Rationality

Why would God send people to hell just because they haven't heard about Jesus?

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

Ridiculous Christian Websites

"It is not good to have zeal without knowledge," as Proverbs 19:2 tells us (NIV 1984).

There are Christian websites that have not benefited from this advice. Two of my favorite examples are below.

1. This website, which purports to expose C. S. Lewis as a heretic, is cearly motivated by a zeal for good, solid theology; they may even have solid theology, of a conservative, Protestant, evangelical sort. But that's the best I can say for it; this site doesn't have a clue about Lewis.

From this website we can learn not only that "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge." It is also not good to have a zeal for orthodoxy without also having love. (I hope I have done better myself.) It also helps to have a modicum of good scholarship.

2. The unforgettable DemonBuster.com is surely the best of the best when it comes to ridiculous Christian websites. I think it should speak for itself, so I will say no more, except this: You may want to turn down the volume on your computer after a minute or so; the music gets old fast (if you've been before, try going again; now there are words to the music!).

Of course, no website is perfect. Perhaps, from time to time, and to paraphrase Algernon Moncreiff, we here at TTC have been very ridiculous in our own small way. One should never take oneself too seriously. Speaking of C. S. Lewis, I think he said that before I did.

Update: Apparently DemonBuster.com no longer plays its music on a loop. It's safe to leave your volume up.

Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality

This book was recommended to me by a friend in the business of recommending good books, and once again, her recommendation has turned out to be one of the most important books I've read this year.

Washed and Waiting is, at its most basic level, a spiritual memoir of a gay Christian who does not believe the Bible's prohibition of homoerotic sex is outmoded or culturally bound---he believes homoerotic sex is a sin. At the same time, however, Hill's experience as a homosexual Christian does not jive with the metanarrative from other theologically conservative Christians that same-sex attraction is a choice that can be changed.* Hill, therefore, practices celibacy.

Here are the reasons I found Washed and Waiting so important:

1. Understanding. Conservative Christians are generally told homosexuality is a choice that can be changed or a coping mechanism that can be healed. While this is true for some, it is not true for all or even most people who experience unwanted same-sex attraction. It's time we stop being so one-dimensional, which generally leads to a lack of understanding and therefore a certain lack of empathy.
2. Empathy. As a spiritual memoir of sorts, Washed and Waiting provides heterosexuals the human super power of walking in an other's shoes. Even for those who can skip number one on this list, the glimpse of the immense and unrelenting loneliness and frustration Hill experiences is invaluable.
3. Relief. For those with similar stories to the author's, Hill's brave telling of his story is an affirmation and encouragement, if nothing else, that they are not alone.
4. Challenge. Washed and Waiting ends with an afterword from Kathryn Greene-McCreight who challenges the church: "Can we [heterosexual Christians] continue to ignore the isolation these brothers and sisters experience within the body of Christ?" The answer, of course, is no.

For a well organized and more in-depth review of Washed and Waiting, click here.


*Neither of these points is up for debate in this post, the goal of which is simply to point to one book; anything else would be beyond the scope and therefore counterproductive here.

C. S. Lewis as Theologian and Christian Philosopher

In recent months I have said a lot about C. S. Lewis. Here is a short summary:

First, I recommend reading John Stott's Basic Christianity and N. T. Wright's Simply Christian alongside Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Second, I state two theological disagreements with Lewis.

Third, I tell how I learned that Lewis really does reject the penal substitutionary atonement.

Fourth, I explain why C. S. Lewis is one of the great philosophers.

Fifth, I explain why C. S. Lewis is one of Christianity's great rhetoricians.

Sixth, I defend C. S. Lewis from the charge that he is a universalist heretic.

C. S. Lewis' face again. I'm all out of ideas for captions. (Picture from here)

I think a very, very short summary would be in order. It's coming up soon. But first we need to make a distinction between two things Christian thinkers can do.

First, there is biblical exegesis, the practice of discovering and explaining what the Bible means.

Second, there is everything else Christian philosophers and theologians do: developing a Christian worldview, understanding Church history, discovering a Christian perspective on everything not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, figuring out how Christianity relates to Plato and other non-Christian philosophers, etc. Since these other modes of Christian thought ought to be guided and governed by good biblical exegesis, I think we could call them "theology" in a broad sense. Another good term is "Christian philosophy" since it includes seeking wisdom in the manner of a Christian.

Now here is the very, very short summary. When it comes to biblical exegesis, I think we should approach C. S. Lewis with a degree of caution. (This is probably true of anyone who doesn't know Hebrew; it's certainly true of me!) But when it comes to Christian philosophy, or theology in the broad sense, Lewis is great. He's among the best of these Christian thinkers, and he might be the most helpful one to write in a century or more--or at least the most helpful one to write in English.

C. S. Lewis Is Not a Universalist heretic

Apparently there is a nasty rumor going around that C. S. Lewis is a universalist heretic. This isn't true.

Is this the face of a heretic? Nay, 'tis the face of THE DEVIL HIMSELF! (Picture from here)

For starters, Lewis isn't a universalist. He's an inclusivist.

That should be enough to refute the charge that he's a universalist heretic. But there's more: Inclusivism isn't a heresy.

There are four generic views that need distinguishing:

Exclusivism: This is the view that there is one way to be saved, Jesus Christ, and that only those who follow Christ in this life will be saved.

Inclusivism: This is the view that there is one way to be saved, Jesus Christ, but that some who do not follow Christ in this life will nonetheless be saved through Him.

Pluralism: This is the view that there are many ways to be saved.

Universalism: This is the view that all are saved.

There are, no doubt, different versions of each view and some hybrid views between the generic views. But these are the generic views it is most helpful to remember.

The best instance of Lewis' inclusivism is the story of Emeth, the Calormene in The Last Battle who was accepted by Aslan (who represents Jesus) because his worship of the false god Tash was a true worship. (There is actually an interesting Wikipedia article on Emeth.) The opposites of Emeth were those characters who had a false worship of Aslan and were not accepted by him, such as Shift the ape.

There is also a beautiful description of inclusivism in That Hideous Strength: "This is the courtesy of Deep Heaven: that when you mean well, He always takes you to have meant better than you knew."

Now this view may not be correct. But I don't see any convincing reason to call it a heresy. Of course, this all depends on using the right definition of "heresy." I'm not quite ready to attempt a precise definition of heresy, but I do want to say this: All heresies are theological errors, but not all theological errors are heresies. Heresies are not just theological mistakes, but impermissible ones. (I happen to think Dispensationalism, for example, is mistaken, but it's definitely not a heresy. Arianism, on the other hand, definitely is a heresy.)

The nasty rumor about Lewis comes from an exclusivist perspective. Now inclusivism and exclusivism are not both right, so one of them is wrong. All the same, I don't think we should call either view a heresy.

At any rate, if we do call inclusivism a heresy, we should give a very careful definition of heresy while we're at it. If you think inclusivism is a heresy, I'd love to hear why! I'd also like to hear what definition of heresy you're using.

But we have to look to the Bible to see which view is correct; I'd recommend a very careful reading of the first few chapters of Romans for a start. I also recommend chapter 8 of Michael Wittmer's Don't Stop Believing.