The BIG Questions

If you’ve been browsing the bookstore displays for Christmas presents, you may have noticed a bumper crop of books attacking religion and belief in God. While I haven’t read any of them yet, I can see that they include versions of arguments that have been made many times before. Some tell us to look at all the bigotry, violence and destruction that is rooted in religion. Well, no argument there. It is hard to imagine 9/11 or the mess in Iraq without religion. Others offer versions of the philosophical “problem of evil.” If there is a God who is loving and all-powerful, why is there so much needless pain and suffering in the world? This is nothing new, though I think Richard Dawkins’ suggestion that the enormous number of pregnancies that end in miscarriage implies that “God is the biggest abortionist around” is a creatively inflammatory piece of rhetoric.

Recently, a New York Times reporter asked a number of these atheist authors what they did at Christmas. The reporter was surprised to find that many atheists are comfortable celebrating Christmas, having Christmas trees, Christmas dinners with family, etc. Some people may now think that these atheists are logically inconsistent or hypocritical to do these things, but I think that position would miss the point.  It is a mistake to think that the appeal and power of religious observance requires some kind of traditional religious belief. What religion has always done, even before there were systematic beliefs that could be rejected, is to provide people with a set of symbolic practices by which they can collectively celebrate the passage of time, both in the cycle of the seasons and the cycle of life. For better or worse, Christmas has become the most prevalent celebration of hope, love, family, and friendship occurring in the darkest week of the year. For atheists to say they want to celebrate those values, without committing to any beliefs about Jesus, seems perfectly reasonable to me. In fact, I would argue that this is as much the “true meaning” of Christmas as is a mythological story about mangers and wise men.

Whatever one’s attitudes toward abortion and same-sex marriage, it is hard to understand what kind of moral system would regard these two issues as the primary ethical foundation of society, as many conservative Christians appear to think. Unfortunately, many such Christians see issues of sexuality and reproduction as the main focus of Jesus’ message and the area where the battle with secular humanists and liberals must be fought. So it was incredibly refreshing to learn last week that Rev Joel Hunter, the president-elect of the Christian Coalition, had resigned because he felt the organization had become too narrow in its focus on a few single issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. According to Hunter, Jesus would want us to care about issues like easing poverty and saving the environment. Of course, some evangelicals are nervous about appearing to embrace issues that have usually been identified as liberal positions. Rev. Jerry Falwell publicly said as much. The thought that Jesus might have agreed more with present-day liberals than conservatives must be very disturbing to them. One interesting evangelical strategy around this problem has been to repackage certain liberal positions in more religious-sounding terms. Rather than refer to “environmentalism” which is a traditional liberal cause, some evangelicals have proposed that more attention be given to what they call “creation care,” a religious term that involves the human responsibility to be a good steward for the world of nature. When some Christians have asked “Would Jesus drive an SUV?,” they do so to keep social responsibility for the world as a central element of religious faith.    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if future political candidates were evaluated by evangelical voters by their positions on these kinds of issues rather than the narrow agendas that have prevailed until now?