Caught in the Act of subverting Christian Confession to Sin

Sarah Boxer has written a very perceptive article that contains excellent spiritual exhortations for anyone with ears to hear. Her first main insight reveals perverted appearance of on-line confession sites. She compares a flasher to this poster of sins. I think she is right about that. Confession can become a sanctified way of revealing in our sin. The “flasher” metaphor captures the mode of this error well. The point of confession is to become Christ-like by bringing a weakness before God so to acknowledge an area of need of God. We trust Christ and allow His Body to enter into our wound and bring the freedom and love of Christ into our wounds in order to heal the root of sin. The root is the real cause of sin, not just changing behavior. So, anonymous web-confessionals are ill suited for any healthy use. There is no owning of one’s sin if one will not own up to who they are. If one did, there is still insufficient community to aid in healing. Further even if sufficient “virtual” community existed, it is unlikely that this venue is capable of manifesting the love and freedom of Christ necessary to heal the actual wounds of the “sinner.”

A second insight fills in details about the dramatic disconnect between that people who think of the sight as a “healing” and prayer-filled environment and the performance of another sin. Boxer quotes a reader who expresses that he believes in the genuineness of the people who contribute. Boxer’s response is worth quoting at length:

“Oh, but there is [fakeness]. And it is the fakeness, the artifice and the performance that make this confessional worth peeking at. The secret sharers here aren't mindless flashers but practiced strippers. They don't want to get rid of their secrets. They love them. They arrange them. They tend them. They turn them into fetishes. And that's the secret of PostSecret. It isn't really a true confessional after all. It is a piece of collaborative art.”

How often are Christian accountability groups simply guilt groups or some other version of performative art? How often do we treasure our sin or make it an object of “beauty”?

Making Sense of Bush, Stem Cell Research, Ethics and Misinformation

Granted, sometimes even Bush may not understand Bush, so I am not going to claim that I have any answers in my crystal ball on why he is threatening to veto the stem cell research bill. However, I do think that is what I would do in his shoes. My reasons have to do with the misinformation (a nice way to say that the public and maybe capital hill have been deceived) and the ethical issues that follow.

Let’s start with the deception of the public. First, the general public seems to think that the only stem cells are embryonic stem cells and that is not true. One clue is found in the name “embryonic.” If there is only one kind, this label would not be meaningful unless it was some sort of rhetorical device created by pro-life groups. It turns out that there are Adult stem cells too (and maybe more kinds). Although adult stem cells are now being talked about, they are slanderously discussed with the tone of “limited” and “narrow” words that make them sound like 3 day old leftovers.

Second, embryonic stem cells are getting lots of attention and lots of promises are made about their potential. This potential is real. However, to my knowledge there are no known treatments that work, while there are over 80 successful treatments developed from adult stem cells. The crazy part is that the very potential of the embryonic cells is what seems to make them difficult to use. If you are a gambler, they seem to be a long-shot that will not likely pay off. But if it did, it would be a big pay-off. These cells are fully totipotential. This means that this cell has the ability to become any cell in the body. The hard part is that the scientific community has no idea who the foreman of the work crew is. Thus, if you don’t know who is running the show, you can’t take his seat. Genes function like the steering wheel, and steering wheels play a legitimate causal role in the direction of the vehicle. Although there is high potential, the probabilities are not in favor of a pay-off.

In response, someone might claim that the only reason this is true is that so little research has been done. Although there is some merit to this reply, it makes other problematic assumptions about the nature of persons and has an unfalsifiable perspective. For example, this perspective is of the same sort as the statement “I could have beat Michael Jordan one-on-one if I could score more points.” Also it is smart investing to work on adult stem cells which will likely suffer less complications like there will probably not be rejection issues because they come from your own body. Of course that leads into the question of cloning oneself and parting your other self out. The point here is that there has been enough evidence that to show that embryonic stem cell research is a difficult path and probabilities and actual successful treatments make adult stem cells a better candidate for research.

Another key issue is the very nature of personhood is in the balance. Bush and I agree (I think) that an embryo is a person. Have you seen the Matrix? Imagine thousands of people in pods hooked up to machines, only instead of being utilized for energy by an army of crazy machines; there are doctors who cut them up for their parts. The issue of personhood is central to the debate, and certainly it is not settled. Even if you are inclined to think that an embryo is not a person, consider the ramifications if you are wrong for one minute. The stakes are too high to call it science and simply proceed without serious thought. I’ll save this one for another post, and finish with a “just suppose.” Suppose that I told you that one month babies are people yet and that by taking their organs we could save thousands of lives. This is obviously wrong because we know these are little people. So, when does life begin? – Conception. When personhood begins makes a big difference– I think it begins at conception. When you draw the line and why? If embryos are people, then it is a “no-brainer.” If they are not, then alternative constructions of what it means to be human may seriously undermine more than we might ever gain.

Pat Robertson Said What?

Good post over at Mark Byron analyzing a recent discussion Pat Robertson had about the 2008 election. Apparently, Pat likes the idea of a pro-choice Gulianni replacing the entire Supreme Court in 2009 (I have this weird feeling Bush is going 8 years with nuthin) as opposed to electing a pro-life John McCain.

With all due respect to Reverend Robertson (we share a common school after all) I absolutely cannot fathom why he'd think this. Mark has a nice theory, though. This comment was particularly insightful.

"Is McCain more liberal than Giuliani? Not last I checked. If anything, he's more conservative on the moral issues that Robertson supposedly champions. However, McCain's less of a loyal Republican, willing to buck the party leadership. You can be a libertine, but as long as you're a loyal Republican, Rev-run Pat's got your back."

*UPDATE* Apparently Pat Robertson and I share the same initials. It looks like Pat Robertson's real name is M.G. Robertson. Weird.

Celebrity Blogging

Ariana Huffington has recently relaunched her blog ,this time featuring guest bloggers from a diverse set of backgrounds. These bloggers include politicians, public intellectuals, and even a few celebrities. When I first heard that I now have the opportunity to read John Cusack's thoughts on the world, the following question came to mind. Why, exactly, would I be interested in hearing John Cusack's thoughts on the world?

Our society's obsession with celebrity mystifies me. There seems to be no part of our daily lives immune from celebrity interest. Blogging strikes me as a rather egalitarian arena. (Assuming you have access to the internet, which is obviously not the case for everyone.) Create your own small space in the great big internet, publish your thoughts, and reap the rewards. (Or, in some cases, reap the whirlwind ) It's not who you are, it's what you write. Or that's the thought at least.

But there seems to be some sort of demand for hearing the thoughts of celebrities. This obviously doesn't have anything to do with their eloquence or their wisdom. Rather, it's driven by the fact that the public at large has an almost intimate knowledge of the day-to-day lives of celebrities, in which case being interested in a blog featuring celebrities is just a natural development. If you know what kind of cereal Will Smith buys at the grocery store, why wouldn't you want his insight on North Korea?

I suppose that kind of interest is fine for the millions of people who subscribe to People magazine. But I find it truly worrisome when our celebrity fixation gets in the way of important matters. A few years ago, Ohio Senator George Voinovich made national headlines when he refused to attend a congressional hearing featuring testimony delivered by a Backstreet Boy. This, I think, was the right statement to make. George would have been justified in skipping the appearance if the guy was merely singing (and dancing, which goes together when you're a Backstreet Boy), much less giving testimony relating to the environmental impact of strip-mining in Kentucky.

Let's hope this celebrity blogging thing doesn't take off.

Abortion Discussion

Evangelical Outpost has a good post about the immorality of abortion. He talks about a widely-cited article by Kansas philosopher Don Marquis about what makes killing wrong and how that's related to abortion. One thing that fascinates and saddens me about the problem of abortion is the intersection of politics and philosophy. The philosophical arguments are interesting, challenging and can, at times, reach profundity. Politics, of course, just messes that all up. There are real discussions to be had, but the rhetoric puts some conversations beyond the realm of the possible. 'Tis a shame.

Top Down or Bottom Up?

I'm having a hard time understanding the desire by some Christians to engage in a fight over judicial nominations in the name of religious expression and freedom. What, exactly, is the point? Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council lists four reasons why this isn't just political but religious as well, and why it is incumbent upon all Christians to join this distinctly religous struggle.

1. The Legalization of Abortion

This is a tough one. For pro-lifers, abortion isn't just about curtailing the rights of women, it's about protecting the lives of unborn children. More than a religious issue, it's a question of justice. But it's also an issue that resonates with more than just the religiously minded. So the question is why Christians are drawing the wagons so close. If abortion is an issue of life and death that should alarm all Americans, the debate shouldn't be about people of faith. Wouldn't it make more sense to rally all Americans, both religious and non-religious, to fight for a more just society?

Even more troubling is that when you paint the problem of abortion in religious terms, you give liberals more fodder for the cannons. Nothing is more dangerous to healthy debate than empty rhetoric. It means the speaker isn't thinking and it gives the listener an excuse to be dismissive. The challenge is whether pro-lifers can argue against abortion on terms everyone can accept. Christians must never paint abortion as a religious issue if they intend to change the minds of the pro-choice community.

2. The Banning of School Prayer

This isn't as tough of an issue. What's traumatic about school prayer isn't that we don't have it, it's that it was taken away. School prayer isn't about saving the souls of children, it's about what how we conceive of our country. At root, are we a Christian nation, where we separate the state from the church for the good of the church? Or are we a pluralistic nation, where we separate the church from the state for the good of the state? And does this even matter?

I'm inclined to think it doesn't matter. For Christians, and more particularly Evangelicals, the big point in life is telling people about the love of God. So the thought surely must be that by preserving our Christian heritage, we are allowing the gospel to fluorish, thereby opening up the gates of heaven. But that can't be right. Revival, and its evil twin spiritual decay, can never work from the top down. The changes in our nation's laws hasn't pushed this nation away from Christianity but rather has merely been the reflection of a changing nation. And if modifying our laws was never the problem, then it can't be the solution. Spiritual change must come from the bottom up.

3. The Expulsion of the 10 Commandments from Public Spaces

This really mystifies me. Again, I'm forced to ask, so what? What benefit is there to a public display of the 10 commandments? When people shuffle in and out of courtrooms that display the 10 commandments, they don't stop to ponder the wonderful Judeo-Christian heritage this nation enjoys. And if a courtroom doesn't have the 10 commandments on display, people don't fret over whether our laws are built on a firm foundation.

The fight, of course, is once again over the way we conceive of our nation. But at what price do we pay for such a debate? The more Christians fight over religious expression in the public sphere, the more tempting it is to water down such expression. And there is no point for more exposure to this nation's Christian heritage when all you eventually get is a civic religion that doesn't really represent anyone.

4. The Starvation of Terri Schiavo

Finally, we see that the Family Research Council has launched this campaign, in part, over the cause of a single woman. Here, I am left to wonder if our priorities are woefully mixed up. There is much wrong with our country and our world, and it strikes we as unfortunate that some Christians have put so much emphasis on a single tragic choice. Figuring out the right thing to do in end-of-life scenarios is not a simple task and what the courts did may or may not have been the wise choice. But at the least, the charitable interpretation of what happened with Terri Schiavo is to say that it was a murky debate over a difficult issue, and not another example of a nation gone awry. I am fearful, however, that Terri Schiavo has instead been enlisted in a fight against what some people perceive is religious bigotry.

These four issues strike me as a mix of legitimate topics for public debate, and senseless hand-wringing over the place of Christianity in public life. What is common to all of these issues is that they are dangerous when mixed with the rhetoric of religious persecution. First, if Christians try to monopolize the abortion debate, then the cause is lost. If Christians expect to make progress in how this nation conceives of abortion, then it must enlist the non-religious. Second, if Christians remain convinced that this nation should change its laws to save its soul, then we are in deep trouble. What is the point of the 10 commandments on display if you had to alienate a nation of non-Christians to get it there?

And so I'm left wondering about the fight against religious bigotry. There has got to be a better way. I just don't know what that is.

UPDATE: Here here and here are some links to other organizations who stand opposed to abortion but yet have no part in a Republican struggle against the judiciary. I'm curious as to what they think of all this.