HUMAN SMALLNESS

Posted on March 14, 2011 by stanwiedeman

No country in the world has prepared itself for earthquakes and tsunamis more than Japan. Yet, the death toll continues to rise, estimated to reach well beyond 10,000. And a leading risk analysis firm estimates that property losses will total between $14 billion and $34 billion.

Japan’s 6,852 islands, comprising a land mass about the size of Montana, are located in a volcanic zone on the Pacific Ring of Fire. Five tectonic plates threaten the country with frequent and substantial earthquakes. Twenty-four temblors over 6.5 on the Richter scale have shaken Japan in the last century, 13 in the last decade (not counting the Sendai quakes).

The 1923 Kanto Earthquake, killing over 100,000 people, propelled Japanese leaders to take every precaution possible to avert a future disaster. Building codes include the most stringent seismic standards in the world. Sophisticated engineering allows tall buildings to flex during an earthquake. Dozens of seismic centers are wired into a warning system that will give residents at least fifteen seconds to take cover before a quake hits. The trains in the massive rail system automatically stop with the transmission of that warning signal to prevent derailment.

Earthquake awareness permeates the culture. Japan dedicates National Prevention Day to commemorate the 1923 quake and the 1995 Kobe Earthquake that killed over 6,000 people. The observance includes simulations and drills to train the population in earthquake safety. Most businesses and schools practice emergency procedures, Helmets, first-aid kits, local water storage facilities and disaster supplies equip the Japanese for the next quake.

Earthquakes off the coast usually spawn tsunamis. Japan has prepared for these as well. Six regional centers that command 180 seismic stations and 80 water-borne sensors monitor the earth’s activities 24 hours a day. At the first sign of a major quake, a warning signal is sent.

National media coordinates with the Japan Meteorological Agency to superimpose alerts on TV screens. Additional signals are transmitted to local officials, using satellite systems as a backup to the land-based system, alerting them to activate sirens and loudspeakers to warn of a possible tsunami. Miles of concrete breakwaters and floodgates protect Japan’s coastline.

The system comes with a pricey invoice – about $20 million every year just to keep the system running. This does not include the cost of training and supplies for its citizenry.

All of this may have indeed reduced the country’s losses last Friday when it endured the most powerful earthquake in its history. The 8.9 quake exceeded Haiti’s 7.0 quake last year by a multiplier of 700 while Japan’s death toll will be less than one-tenth of Haiti’s.

Nevertheless, Japan remains at the mercy of natural causes. No amount of technology can stop the shifting of tectonic plates. Human ingenuity is defenseless in the face of a 30-foot wave traveling as fast as 600 mph. Video images make the Japanese communities look like ant hills being hit with water from a fire hydrant.

“The hubris of humanity makes us forget how powerful nature can be,” commented Bill Patzert, a climatologist with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada Flintridge. Humans have made expansive progress in subduing the creation and having dominion over it (Genesis 1:28), but the creation imposes severe limitations to that dominion.

Humanity should do all that it can to protect itself against natural disasters, but we need to retain a proper sense of smallness in relationship to the universe. Our technology performs miracles from a century-old perspective, yet the mysteries of geology, meteorology and biology still taunt us. Control of the cosmos eludes us.

Job suffered a series of tragedies caused by human injustice and natural disasters. Then illness struck him to the point that he longed for the grave. He protested his plight, maintaining his innocence before a righteous Judge. He sought to explain his scourge in the face of a theology that defines God as good and just.

Job was privileged to receive a response from God. In his 125-verse rebuttal, God appeals to dozens of events and transactions that occur in creation daily outside Job’s knowledge and control. Nature shrinks Job to an appropriate size. He acknowledges his proper place in the created order, which, in turn, properly orients him to God. Job replies, “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth.” (Job 40:4)

The powerful and unruly forces of nature should humble us, while stimulating our curiosity for answers. Even more tragic than helpless suffering at the hands of a violent creation is clueless suffering, ignorant of the God who possesses power and authority over nature, the God who can protect and heal, the God who can rescue and save.

Faith alone will correctly align us with the God “who shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble” (Job 9:7), “who stills the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves” (Ps. 65:7). We cannot know all that there is to know, but we can know the One who knows all that there is to know and who rules over it all.

Posted in God and Nature, Natural Disasters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SEXUALITY AND PERSONHOOD

Posted on March 8, 2011 by stanwiedeman

Academic freedom? Intellectual pursuit? Scholastic investigation? Advancement of knowledge? Do these labels apply to the controversial class demonstration at Northwestern University. Psychology professor, J. Michael Bailey, contends that they do.

Bailey teaches a class on human sexuality. On Feb. 21, he invited a guest lecturer, Ken Melvoin-Berg, co-owner of Weird Chicago, to discuss bondage and sexual fetishes. The subject remains consistent with the purview of Bailey’s class material. Bailey titled the class Networking for Kinky People.

At the conclusion of the lecture, Bailey invited the students to remain for a movie on the topic. He repeatedly warned them that the material was exceptionally graphic. Most of the students left for their next classes, but about 100 of the 567 enrollment remained.

Melvoin-Berg had invited a couple to accompany him to the lecture, Jim Marcus and his fiance, Faith Kroll.  The couple considers themselves exhibitionists who enjoy practicing kinky sex for observation. Concerned that the movie presented misinformation, the couple asked Bailey if they could perform a live demonstration. Bailey said that he could not think of a good reason to deny them.

Once again Bailey gave the students an opportunity to leave and some did. Kroll then removed all of her clothing except a bra and down on a towel on the stage. Using a mechanical device, Marcus brought the woman to orgasm in about thee minutes.

The demonstration caused an outburst of passionate reactions from parents, alumni, and outsiders. The University initially issued a statement saying, “The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge.” Later, Northwestern President, Morton Schapiro launched an investigation into the incident, admitting that he was “troubled and disappointed by what occurred.” Schapiro has since declared, “I simply do not believe this was appropriate, necessary or in keeping with Northwestern University’s academic mission.”

With ambivalence Bailey has said he regrets the effects of his decision upon the reputation of the University. He then hastens to defend that decision, claiming that none of the arguments he has heard denouncing the demonstration have been convincing, stating they “convey disapproval but do not illuminate reasoning.” He does not agree with the assertion that the demonstration does not advance research or knowledge. He is organizing a discussion with the students to preserve its intellectual value.

That value will continue to foster debate, but I have another concern. What construct is Bailey using to discuss human sexuality? Does he include the relationship of sexuality to all aspects of humanness? Or in his “scientific” approach, does he reduce it to biology and physiology, truncating the psychological, emotional and spiritual aspects to sexuality? Are its effects upon identity, self-esteem, relationships, marriage, family and other social institutions investigated?

Most experts on this subject would say that the young woman’s hasty orgasm was exceptional. Female responsiveness is much more complex than a man’s, dependent upon a sense of security, esteem and love. This does not mean that when these are absent, sexual pleasure is negated. A woman can reduce intercourse to nothing more than a physical act that uses techniques to maximize pleasure. Experts would probably agree that this approach will result in a high rate of diminishing returns.

The trajectory of our culture has been fragmenting sexuality from humanness for decades. Movies and television treat casual sex like drinking iced tea on a hot summer day. The way couples jump into bed on first dates implies that intercourse does not really differ from kissing or holding hands. It merely expresses the attraction to another person. Only physical complications such as STD’s should restrain or regulate the experience.

The Bible views sexuality very differently. Sexual intimacy affects a person’s sense of worth and acceptance, identity, ability to bond with and trust others, and capacity for giving and receiving love, to mention only a fraction of its impact. The author of Genesis links it to the mysterious union of a man and a woman becoming “one flesh.” The depth of this union requires an exploration that transcends the shallow display of two exhibitionists or a quick romp in bed to cap off a good date.

Fragmentation of sexuality is producing waves that will sweep through American society, eroding the foundations for healthy social institutions. On a personal level, the casual, disconnected treatment of sex stunts human growth. One would hope that the educational system would introduce persons in their most formative years to an intelligent and comprehensive examination of the sexuality. The decision of the Northwestern professor suggests that we cannot hope for this kind of examination.

How will the church respond? We desperately need a thorough and nuanced theology of sexuality. John Paul II has offered his “theology of the body” in  material that he wrote when he served as archbishop of Krakow. Later, as the pope, he delivered it as a series of catecheses. In his seminal work, Man and Woman He Created Them, he shows the integral relation of physicality and sexuality to humanness, providing a much more extensive understanding of personhood that current cultural trends.

Jesus called his church to live counter-culturally. The kingdom of God that Jesus inaugurated offers a healing environment for those who are ravaged by the effects of cultural norms that sever spiritual reality from the human experience. The church must recognize its mission to a suffering world in this area of sexuality, and strive to fulfill it with confidence, transparency and an integrity of theology.

Posted in Christians Engaging Culture, Nature of Man, Sexuality | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

STRATEGIES FOR CHANGING CULTURE

Posted on March 7, 2011 by stanwiedeman

Conservatives use protests to change culture

Every public opinion poll reveals the same reality: same-sex marriage is steadily gaining approval. The Pew Forum has questioned Americans on this topic for 15 years. In 1996, only 27% approved of same-sex marriage and 69% firmly opposed it. In 2010 approval had risen to 42% and opposition had decreased to 48%. Illinois joined five other states that have legalized same-sex unions of some form.

Contrasting with the gradual shift in public opinion and legislation, since 1998, 29 states have officially banned same-sex unions to varying degrees. Prevailing political posture currently reflects the majority view that law should define marriage as a union between a man and woman only. If opinion continues the current trend, that majority will soon swing to favorability and we can expect a corresponding change in state legislation.

Conservatives will continue the mantra that most Americans disapprove of same-sex marriage. A strong religious protest will battle the trend and oppose the legislation. But culture will change right before our eyes.

How do we explain this? Differing values in the generations partly explains it. Since 1996, Baby Boomers have gradually changed their minds, from 26% accepting gay unions to 38% in 2010. Those born between 1965 and 1980 (Gen Xers) already favored gay unions at 40% in 1996 and more strongly favor it at 48% in 2010. The Millennial Generation (born after 1980) have changed the least, but current approval stands at 53%.

Certainly, youth are more open to non-traditional values in any culture, especially in a world that changes at light speed every year. That does not explain the significant change in acceptance among the Baby Boomers. Statistics also reveal the shift has occurred even within every religious group, although at a much slower rate. Religious communities are grudgingly losing ground.

In his book, To Change the World, James Davison Hunter asserts that many Christians have adopted a false theory for social change, believing that the majority belief determines the social norm. Therefore, change occurs when a majority adopts a belief that differs from the existing norm. The LaBrosse-Levinson Distinguished Professor of Religion, Culture, and Social Theory at the University of Virginia argues that this faulty theory has led Christians to invest a large amount of energy in resources and strategies to effect cultural change that prove ineffective.

Davison uses the gay rights movement as one example of this erroneous theory. Comprising only about three percent of the population, this group has imposed an influence many times its size on the culture. Their beliefs have infiltrated the power structures of society. Movies, television sitcoms, opinion columns and radio programs have given priority to this issue. Opponents are stereotyped as homophobes or mean-spirited people who cannot think their way out of a paper sack. Rarely does the media provide thoughtful discourse on the subject.

The majority opinion has slowly eroded. Some of this happened by removing the “ick” factor. Placing homosexuality only in a favorable light desensitizes people to the initial reaction of disgust. Treating them as innocent victims of social bigotry evokes sympathy for their plight. The prevailing relative morality, which believes that every person should be left alone with their private moral standards, provides fertile soil for cultural change. Over time, the ubiquitous message that homosexuality does not harm society and deserves the same treatment as racial minorities persuades people to abandon their prejudice towards the homosexual community.

American Christians have tried the strategy of infiltrating social power structures to ensure their moral beliefs are not nullified by competing beliefs. They first embraced this tactic following the devastating victory of the abortion rights movement. In spite of their concerted efforts, they have done little to reverse the laws on abortion or bring about social change.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers use compassion rather than power

Christians have made their greatest contribution on the right to life issue through crisis pregnancy centers. These enclaves of compassion and love prohibit political rhetoric. They single-mindedly devote themselves to meeting women who face the emotional and psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy, including offering acceptance and healing to those women who have chosen to abort their babies. The stories of redemption reveal the sweeping impact of these centers.

Jesus did not try to use social power structures to introduce his kingdom to the world. He came as a servant, not a senator. He brought healing to the sick residents of a toxic society. He offered forgiveness to the lives broken by cultural beliefs that suck the humanness out of humanity. Jesus did not engage in a power struggle with the power mongers of his day. He refuted their beliefs, but poured himself out in humility and love, providing a different path from the existing avenues of socially accepted habits.

Hunter calls this faithful presence. This strategy was effective for populating the kingdom of God. It has rescued millions of women and babies from a culture of death. And it will prove to be the most effective strategy for bringing love and healing to a community of people who are confused and defensive about their sexual orientation. Are we willing to be faithfully present to them in the same way Jesus was present to the broken in his society?

Posted in Christians Engaging Culture, Homosexuality, Sexuality | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

COMPETING BARS IN BASEBALL

Posted on February 28, 2011 by stanwiedeman

Albert Pujols

“Set the bar, Albert.” This is the new mantra in baseball news. Albert Pujols, perhaps the best hitter in baseball, completes the final year of his contract with the St. Louis Cardinals this year. Contract negotiations stalled on the day before spring training began. Both sides agreed to delay them until the end of the season, at which time the Cardinals will have five days of exclusive rights to resign the hitting star.

The bar refers to the salary package. Alex Rodriquez netted the highest package in history, signing with the New York Yankees in 2008 for $275 million over 10 years. Rumors indicate that Pujols wants $300 million over 10 years, a price many teams will gladly pay for a hitter of his caliber. Rumors, again, place the Cardinals’ offer at $160 million over 8 years, quite a distance from the bar. Both sides remain silent on the actual figures.

Those who know baseball will not contest the value that Pujols brings to a team. His statistics are comparable to the man considered the best hitter to ever play the game, Ted Williams. After 10 seasons with the Cardinals, Pujols is on pace to surpass many of Williams’ totals of his 19-year career.

Stan Musial

During negotiations, Pujols agreed to a request by the Cardinals to extend the deadline by one day so that the Cardinals management could give attention to another Cardinals player, Stan Musial, known as Stan the Man. Musial played 22 seasons for the Cardinals between 1941 and 1963, missing the 1945 season to serve in the Navy during WWII.

Musial ranks among the best hitters in MLB history. Some argue he is in the top five, with Williams, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. He is fourth on the career hits list. He led the league in batting average seven times and won three MVP’s.

On February 15, Musial received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama, along with 14 other distinguished individuals. A president can bestow this honor on any person who makes “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” It is the highest civilian award in the U.S.

Musial did not receive this reward for his baseball achievements, but for his character. His 90-year life has displayed humility, honesty and integrity. On the field and off, he earned the highest respect from players and fans. He never refused an autograph request and never eluded a fan who wanted to shake his hand.

In 1947, when Jackie Robinson, the first African American to play major league baseball, was called up by the Brooklyn Dodgers, many players protested the integration. The Cardinal players threatened to strike when the two teams met for a series in May. Commissioner Happy Chandler promised suspension for any player who struck. Always a private person, Musial revealed his opposition to the racism of his own teammates and always offered quiet support to the maligned Robinson, which Robinson appreciated.

For his 22-year career, he earned $1,261,400. His annual salary reached $100,000 for two seasons, setting the bar in salaries those years. In one of those years, Musial was disgusted with his productivity and asked the owners to reduce his salary to $75,000. That will probably never happen again in professional baseball.

As a boy, U.S. Representative William Lacy Clay watched Musial play at Sportsman Park. After getting to know him as an adult, Clay said, “Stan Musial is a national treasure. His remarkable life represents the very best of America.” Missouri Governor Jay Nixon praised Musial, commenting that the medal “was appropriate for a man who is both a baseball immortal and an extraordinary American and gentleman.”

I may be biased in my opinion of Stan the Man. On the night I was born, Musial hit a home run that helped the Cardinals win a game. My father had a great admiration for Musial as a man and decided to name his firstborn son after this baseball hero. I have always worn the name with great esteem for my namesake.

Most authorities on baseball lament that free agency nurtured greed, which has produced shameless salaries. Arguably, the money ruins the game and the players. Character gets lost in the cluster of zeros in salary packages.

What if a different bar was revered in baseball, a bar that Musial may have set? What if players aspired to integrity rather than income? What if reputation won more accolades than records? What if the league slashed salaries, putting major league players in the same tax bracket as teachers?

Job set this kind of bar in his generation. God boasted to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” (Job 2:3) This commendation cannot be equaled by any salary.

Seven former MLB players and three Negro League players have won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, including Ted Williams, Jackie Robinson, Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson and Buck O’Neil. Musial joined elite company. I can’t help but think that the legacies of these players have outlasted their salaries by decades. It begs the question, Which bar would you prefer to set?

Posted in Character, Sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

SEX AND THE BIBLE

Posted on February 21, 2011 by stanwiedeman

Another book will populate the shelves this month that calls into question the traditional interpretation of biblical passages on sexuality. Jennifer Wright Knust, professor of religion at Boston University and ordained minister in the American Baptist Churches USA, points to “the contradictory nature of the biblical witness” with regard to sexual morals.

Touted as a Bible scholar, Knust’s book, Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire, carries weighty authority. She has studied the texts extensively, researching history, language and customs in her quest to refute what she considers an irresponsible and dogmatic use of the Bible in political issues of sexuality.

In the introduction of her book, she writes, “The Bible is complicated enough, ancient enough, and flexible enough to support an almost endless set of interpretive agendas. That’s why abolitionists could find inspiration in the Bible’s pages despite centuries of biblically sanctioned argumentation in favor of the enslavement of fellow human beings. Even today, progressives can cite scripture to celebrate the consecration of gay marriage just as effortlessly as conservatives can argue that God refuses to accept anything other than marriage between one man and one woman. It wasn’t the Bible that brought emancipation, and it won’t be the Bible that determines our sexual ethics. Rather, we ourselves must decide what kind of people we will become, what kinds of weddings should be celebrated, and how best to love one another.”

Knust correctly observes that political opponents have used the Bible to support their competing views on the same issue. What one argues the Bible justifies, another argues the Bible vilifies. If the Bible contradicts itself, offering rival points of view, then it has nothing to say in the debate. Extract biblical references and let the arguments stand on human reason. Knust favors this approach, not only in sexual politics, but on other moral matters as well.

But if the Bible presents a cohesive and consistent perspective on an issue, then one of the interpretations must be flawed. This requires further examination of those passages used as proof texts for each position. It implies that one interpretation is wrong and the other is right, or that both may have some weaknesses.

Knust rejects this conclusion. “I’m not interested in judging who gets things wrong or right. Instead I would like to convince all of us to take responsibility for the interpretations we are promoting. I would like us to stop pretending that the Bible has been dictating our conclusions to us so that we can evaluate the implications of what we are defending. The question for me is not whether an interpretation is valid but whether it is valuable, and to whom.”

In order to arrive at this opinion, she must argue that her interpretations of various passages are right. She must show that the Bible does indeed contradict itself and, therefore, must be discounted as a rulebook on sexual ethics.

For example, she uses the book of Ruth to demonstrate that the Bible sanctions premarital sex. Using an unorthodox meaning for the word “feet” (“a Hebrew euphemism for male genitals”), Knust suggests that when Ruth uncovered Boaz’s feet and slept there on the threshing floor, she actually had premarital sex with him. The Bible seems to commend her action.

If Knust incorrectly interprets “feet” in this passage as a euphemism, her argument collapses and the Bible does not sanctify premarital sex. Her position, that the Bible refutes itself and cannot be used as a moral judge, depends, ironically, upon a correct interpretation of the text.

She also points to the Song of Solomon for biblical commendation of premarital sex. “The lovers in this poem are not married, yet they eagerly seek one another out, uniting in gardens and reveling in the splendor of one another’s bodies.” The most honest interpretations of this book of the Bible acknowledge the sexuality and sensuality of the text. The context for the beauty and glory of sexual relations between the man and woman in Song demands careful interpretation. Several interpretations explain this poem as a description of the delight of sex in the act of consummating the passion between two lovers in marriage. Knust would have readers trust her interpretation to be correct so that she can prove the unreliability of the Bible in determining modern sexual ethics.

The complexities of sexuality in the Bible should not be ignored. The biblical silence on the practice of polygamy by Old Testament saints, like Jacob and David, challenges the traditional position of monogamy and demands an honest explanation in a theology of marriage. God’s instructions to his prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute and continue to pursue her when she leaves him seems to defy marriage regulations and sexual standards. Can this confusion be resolved without discrediting the Bible’s authority?

Using creative scholarship, as Knust does, forcing remote and speculative meanings on words and passages that have retained consistent interpretation for centuries, does not contribute to the discussion. Instead, it seems to reveal a bias to defend modern sexual politics in the name of love and acceptance combined with biblical scholarship.

Once again, we see the effect of underlying assumptions and bias upon biblical interpretation. It clearly warns us to hold our own interpretations with humility. Honest scrutiny of our positions is always helpful in moving towards a reasonable and correct theology with integrity.

Posted in Biblical Authority, Sexuality | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment