Help Hereafter … and Here Too!

IN YO FACE ATHEIST HEATHENS! YEAH AND YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS TOO!! That sentiment (though here in jest and hyperbolicized) would seem to be the implicit point of this ScienceDaily article, which says that “the type of religious congregations in a locale … affects mortality rates, often in a positive manner.”

The study looked at Christian denominations, divided broadly into two categories: Catholic/Mainline Protestant, and Conservative Protestant. Conservative Protestant was further subdivided into Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Evangelical groupings. The researchers found that the presence of Catholic/Mainline, and Envangelical churches tends to decrease mortality rates, while the presence of Fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches is correlated with higher rates.

The cause apparently is simple: Mainliners and Catholics tend to be very world-focused, striving to solve social ills as the Body of Christ. Likewise, Evangelicals stress community outreach and socializing. However, conservative Protestants in general tend to be concerned more on the hereafter than on societal problems; hence they are not necessarily as active in endeavors to aid society through human institutions. (I would like to see similar research regarding specifically the emerging church, as societal outreach in this postmodern group is stressed perhaps more there than in any modern denomination.)

It is my hope that this research will be a wake-up call to those Christians who do not see value in “earthly” endeavors. The love of Christ must be demonstrated now, not promised for later. As Billy Graham once said,

The most eloquent prayer is the prayer through hands that heal and bless. The highest form of worship is the worship of unselfish Christian service. The greatest form of praise is the sound of consecrated feet seeking out the lost and helpless.

***

[No offense is intended to either atheists or "fundamentalists" (the latter a broad and often misused term) - I count members of both groups among my closest friends.]

Voting Genetically

Science Daily reported today that “the decision to vote is partly genetic.” Researchers discovered that the likelihood of participation in politics, including voting, campaign contribution, and other activities, is linked to two genes, MAOA and 5HTT. The researchers are careful to note that “we are not robots” (how profound!), but that nevertheless genetics is a significant factor influencing political participation.

Couple this with the 6 February story indicating that one’s specific political views also “may be influenced by how people are wired genetically,” and it seems that less and less in our minds is left to chance. (Actually, I should say ‘left to choice’, as genetics is inherently a matter of chance..but no matter.)

The hypothetical dystopias resulting from this are fascinating (and frightening) to ponder. Isaac Asimov once wrote a short story called “Franchise,” in which a massive computer calculated electoral probabilities to the point that it was only necessary for one person to vote. As prenatal genetic testing becomes more common, it is easy to conceive of a similar system based on biology: the government could simply calculate the genetic data and determine who will win. Voting? Bah! Waste of time!

Without free will, democracy becomes pointless. No one would seriously argue right now that genetics negates freedom of decision; but a trend toward such thinking is evident in our culture. Consider the fact that many do argue, though not explicitly, that genetics limits personal responsibility. What would normally be considered to be “bad decisions” are increasingly viewed as unfortunate outcomes of one’s genetic burden. There is is certainly merit in this; genetic disorders do exist, and they do in some cases preempt personal responsibility for “wrong” actions. But even as society recognizes this biological fact, we must be ever more careful to safeguard personal freedom where it truly exists.

Gospel 2.0

Over at Hacking Christianity, Rev. Jeremy Smith wrote an interesting post called “The Incarnation in a Virtual World.” His question is this:

One of the tenets of Christianity is that Jesus is God-with-us, Emmanuel, human. How do we preach the Incarnation in a world where we can craft virtual space so easily and completely?

I think that at least part of the answer lies in a conception of the Bible and of the Gospel as story - a narrative of life, love, death, and resurrection. The universal idea of narrative transcends any specific medium; it’s something everyone can relate to, allowing all to experience common emotions and shared thoughts. It’s not bound to print, or film, or voice. And it’s active, engaging not just the story-teller but also the story-receiver, allowing both to share in what the narrative offers. In Christian application, story makes the Gospel real, even (in a sense) makes Christ himself real to us, in a way that can appeal to our deepest instincts even while using our latest technologies.

This formulation of the Gospel, simpler than whatever systematic theologies, doctrinal texts, or religious philosophies exist at any given time, is universal. It has survived the ancient, the medieval, the modern, and the post-modern epochs, adapting all the time to varying technologies (scrolls, illuminated texts, books, and digital media). This should be no surprise, for “the word of the Lord endures forever.”

Social Justice vs. Social Redemption

[religion]

Over at unorthodoxology, there was an interesting post about the concept of ’social justice’ in the context of Christianity. It says:

But Jesus isn’t about giving us what we deserve, but about opening us up to each other in radical ways.

I would much rather hear us talking about “social redemption” instead of “social justice.” We as Christians should be working to redeem society, offering a path toward transformation and the ability to realize that the redemption we seek will redeem us as much as the thing we seek to redeem.

I think that’s a great point. After all, in the Christian view, the entire point of the Incarnation is to save us from just condemnation for our sins. The beauty of Christ’s life is that is he was focused on redemption, not on justice proper.

This doesn’t mean that ’social justice’ is a concept without value; after all, the God of the Bible is certainly viewed as just. But in the Incarnation, Law was replaced by Grace - and this means that the focus of the Christian life, in seeking to transform the world, must be on redemption.

xkcd … Symbols … and, well, Everything!

[science & religion]

I have to admit, I like xkcd. A lot. I think it’s one of the more humorous features of the interweb.

Last week, comic #435 was published (click on it below for larger view):

I like this comic. It describes something I’ve thought a lot about myself - that science (most of it anyway) is ultimately reducible to mathematics.

This being a blog about more than science, however, I will attempt to apply this cartoon to another subject: religion. Specifically, if one were to construct a similar diagram of ‘Fields arranged by Purity’, but one that included religion, what would it look like?

I suppose some would place religion in the diagram above in some way connected to sociology or psychology. But that, to me, would be unsatisfactory. I would prefer to place it not within the schema above, but rather to construct a parallel organization. For example, I might begin with:

religion < applied metaphysics

But of course it could not end there. Other relations must follow. One might arrive at a schema like this:

ritual < applied doctrine < applied metaphysics < applied language

If that makes any sense. Of course, this is drastically incomplete, and I’m not sure I even agree with it. But I do think it’s an interesting analogy to the point made by the cartoon.

I’m not sure of [ metaphysics < applied language ]. The basis for this claim is that metaphysical systems are constructed in language (of course) and in many ways deal with linguistic problems (or at least cognitive problems, intimately connected to language); but I lack the experience in philosophy to really make a claim like that. If I’m right, though, the implications are interesting: language is symbol-manipulation, and so is mathematics. Symbols then, in the technical sense of the linguistic and mathematical symbol, form the basis of both physics and metaphysics.

None of this is, of course, original. But I did arrive at it myself, mostly.

What do you think? Is my conception of the symbolic system as at the heart of everything accurate? How would you work politics into all this?