Category Archives: Christian Thought and Practice

Performance-enhancing drugs: not just for athletes

Posted on by
Reply

The journal Nature ($) recently found evidence of significant drug use among academics for the purpose of improving mental ability and increasing productivity.  The Chronicle of Higher Education’s News Blog summarized Nature’s findings like this:

In an online survey of 1,400 readers, Nature found that 20 percent had taken pharmaceuticals for the nonmedical purpose of improving their concentration, focus, and memory. Most of the people who responded to the survey were involved in science, engineering, or education. “The numbers suggest a significant amount of drug-taking among academics,” the magazine said.

The drugs most commonly used were Ritalin, Provigil (which reduces the need for sleep – here is David Plotz’s account of his experience with the drug), and beta blockers. 

Considering the high-pressure, high-stakes environment that many scholars find themselves in, I don’t think it’s surprising that some are turning to performance-enhancing drugs.  It’s not a new trend, either: consider the number of novelists and poets who have turned to alcohol or narcotics to help their writing come more easily. 

I have mixed feelings about this.  I can sympathize (greatly!) with the desire to accomplish more, write more, read more, and to use “artificial” means to get there.  Isn’t this why I drink 2 cups of coffee each morning, to help me become more alert?  I confess that, if I had access to Provigil, I would be strongly tempted to take it.  I struggle to carve out hours in the day to read and write, and adding 8 more hours overnight would be incredible. 

On the other hand, I wonder where this fits into God’s design for our minds and bodies.  We are made in God’s image, with the ability to reason, meditate, study, ponder.  God’s image also includes the Sabbath rest, and a pattern of engagement and withdrawal.  We see this in Genesis 1 and 2, in the ministry of Jesus, and in the promises given to God’s people.  I have a hard time imagining Jesus using Ritalin to help him prep for the Sermon on the Mount, or suggesting that the disciples use Provigil so they could stay up longer. 

For Good Friday: the Seven Last Words

Posted on by
1

For this Good Friday, I am sharing a cycle of hymns that I wrote for my master’s thesis. These are based on the so-called “seven last words” – the seven statements that Jesus makes from the cross in the Gospels, which many churches use liturgically for Good Friday services. I wrote the lyrics: the tunes are traditional hymn tunes that can be found in many hymnals.  May they bless you in reading and singing them as much as they blessed me in writing them. The Seven Last Words (PDF) 

Public Policy from the Sermon on the Mount

Posted on by
Reply

Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

– Barack Obama, June 28, 2006, “Call to Renewal”

The more I read this passage, the more confused I am.  Obama goes on to make a good distinction between the commandments of a religion based on the teachings of that religion and general laws and policies that must be agreed upon by people of many religions.  But I wonder what he had in mind about basing “public policy” on the Sermon on the Mount.

Does he mean outlawing anger or lust?  Or providing tax incentives for the meek?  Or passing national building codes requiring foundations to be set on solid rock?  It’s not a simple equation from Scripture to public policy – and, I would argue, many of the opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage are not basing their positions on proof texts, as Obama parodies them.  I’m not sure if this is political rhetoric to play up to his crowd, or if Obama legitimately doesn’t understand the Biblical arguments against abortion or homosexual marriage.

Obama has been increasing his religious language in the last few days, and the great website GetReligion.org posted an article calling for reporters to ask Obama more direct questions about how he sees various Biblical passages influencing his policy positions.  I second that motion.

Bigotry, Bias, and Legitimate Disagreement

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting article earlier this week about the role of a “surprisingly virulent strain of anti-Mormonism” that was brought to the surface by Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. Combine this with a New York Times editorial that wonder “anti-Mormon bigots” is an appropriate label for evangelicals who don’t want to vote for a Mormon for president, and you have a good occasion for wondering what exactly constitutes “bigotry.”

I am not going to discuss the differences between Mormonism and historic Christianity here.  There’s enough of that available, and the Latter-Day Saints’ official view of historic Christianity should be enough  for the time being. 

Instead, I want to discuss the difference between “bigotry” and legitimate disagreement.  There is, I think, real “anti-Mormon bigotry” – individuals who aim to discredit Mormons (including Mitt Romney) based on simple prejudice, without knowledge of Mormons’ religious beliefs or concern for theological truth. 

On other hand, people are justified in discerning between false and true beliefs, and in discerning the differences between different religious teachings.  When backed with reasoned arguments, claims that Mormonism differs significantly from historic Christian – so significantly, in fact, that one can argue that Mormonism is not merely one denomination among many, but a completely new religion – are not examples of bigotry.  Christians who wish to convince Mormons that their beliefs are incorrect and who call them to accept a different set of teachings should not automatically be considered bigots.  Mormons, after all, are quite active in trying to convert Christians to their set of beliefs. 

If Mormonism is not a true form of Christianity, does that justify discrimination against Mormons in non-religious contexts?  (I hope that it goes without saying that it justifies, for example, not hiring a Mormon to be pastor of your Baptist church.) 

In the great majority of cases, it does not.  Let’s take the case of choosing an auto mechanic.  The qualities most people seek in an auto mechanic – competency, honesty, fairness, reasonable prices for the service performed – don’t depend on religious affiliation.  They fall under what C. S. Lewis called the Tao in his book The Abolition of Man: an objective moral reality that is true for all people in all cultures, which diverse religions have recognized as fundamental moral laws, and which (unfortunately) followers of diverse religions continue to violate.  Someone who tells you “I’m a Christian” is no more trustworthy prima facie than someone who tells you, “I’m a Mormon,” “I’m a Muslim,” or “I’m an atheist.” (In fact, someone who makes a big deal of pointing out their Christianity may in fact be less trustworthy, because they may be trying to gain your trust without having to earn it.) Instead of discrimination, I would hope that Christians would model the same kind of hospitality and graciousness that Jesus modeled in his interactions with Samaritans and Romans.

So then, should Christians make no distinctions whatsoever between types of belief?  This post has already gone on long enough – I will return to that question soon. 

Powered by ScribeFire.

Are Christians Too Republican?

Posted on by
Reply

In USA Today, David Gushee writes a plea to evangelicals suggesting that evangelical Christians should not be “married to the Republican Party.” I agree. But I think Gushee overlooks something vitally important when he writes,

Conservative evangelicals generally offer an unbiblically narrow policy agenda focused on just a few moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage instead of tackling the full range of biblical concerns, which include poverty, oppression and war.

There is no doubt that poverty, oppression, and war are important issues.  However, if you believe that an unborn baby is a living human being with the right to life, then abortion has killed millions of children in the 30+ years since Roe v. Wade.   As much as I might agree with a politician on a broad range of issues, I find it impossible to support someone – Republican or Democrat – who thinks that abortion is either no big deal or a fundamental human right.  And I think many evangelical Christians feel exactly like I do.

The Republican Party platform opposes abortion.  The Democratic Party platform states “we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay.”  I wish that it weren’t as simple as that – I wish that I had a legitimate choice between two or more political parties who opposed killing unborn children.  There’s a lot about the Republican Party that I dislike.  But I could no more vote for a pro-choice Democrat (or a pro-choice Republican) than I could vote for a candidate who accepted slavery as a moral right.