The Rapture (revised version)

Mike Clawson here again…

I’m sure many of you are familiar with those horrendous/disturbing/hilarious “Chick Tracts” – those, little cartoon tracts that express some of the most extreme Fundamentalist theology out there; e.g. Catholics aren’t really Christians and the Pope is the Anti-Christ, role-playing games are a recruiting tool for full blown witchcraft and Satan worship, “Christian” rock musicians have sold their soul to Lucifer, STDs are God’s punishment for having sex outside of marriage, etc. Even as a Christian it is usually pretty annoying/disturbing to read one, so I can only imagine how they must come across to atheists.

Maybe you’ve seen this one that deals with the End Times and the Rapture:

ChickTract1

ChickTract4

ChickTract2

ChickTract3

Well, an acquaintance of mine, the Irish postmodern writer/philosopher Pete Rollins just recently took this whole theme and created a parody version of a Chick Tract, but with a very different message.

ChickParody_Rollins

Unfortunately the whole tract is not up online yet (though you can see a few panels here), and currently the only way to get a copy is in person from Pete (which my wife managed to do this past weekend at a conference they were both speaking at). However Pete did post the basic text of it online and I’ve copied it below. Read it all the way through to get to the twist at the end.

The Rapture

by Peter Rollins

Just as it was written by those prophets of old, the last days of the Earth overflowed with suffering and pain. In those dark days a huge pale horse rode through the Earth with Death upon its back and Hell in its wake. During this great tribulation the Earth was scorched with the fires of war, rivers ran red with blood, the soil withheld its fruit and disease descended like a mist. One by one all the nations of the Earth were brought to their knees.

Far from all the suffering, high up in the heavenly realm, God watched the events unfold with a heavy heart. An ominous silence had descended upon heaven as the angels witnessed the Earth being plunged into darkness and despair. But this could only continue for so long for, at the designated time, God stood upright, breathed deeply and addressed the angels,

“The time has now come for me to separate the sheep from the goats, the healthy wheat from the inedible chaff”

Having spoken these words God slowly turned to face the world and called forth to the church with a booming voice,

“Rise up and ascend to heaven all of you who have who have sought to escape the horrors of this world by sheltering beneath my wing. Come to me all who have turned from this suffering world by calling out ‘Lord, Lord’”.

In an instant millions where caught up in the clouds and ascended into the heavenly realm. Leaving the suffering world behind them.

Once this great rapture had taken place God paused for a moment and then addressed the angels, saying,

“It is done, I have separated the people born of my spirit from those who have turned from me. It is time now for us leave this place and take up residence in the Earth, for it is there that we shall find our people. The ones who would forsake heaven in order to embrace the earth. The few who would turn away from eternity itself to serve at the feet of a fragile, broken life that passes from existence in but an instant.”

And so it was that God and the heavenly host left that place to dwell among those who had rooted themselves upon the earth. Quietly supporting the ones who had forsaken God for the world and thus who bore the mark God. The few who had discovered heaven in the very act of forsaking it.

Just speaking personally, I love Pete’s twist on this traditional Fundamentalist doctrine, and the way he subtly points out how self-serving and uncompassionate it truly is. And I love the message that it is those who care more about the suffering and injustice in this world than they do about escaping it to be with God that are actually closest to God’s own heart (I, and I think Pete too, would say, in spite of whether one believes in that God or not). That reflects my own belief and what it means to me to still call myself a Christian.

Of course, I know that for the atheists here, Pete’s theology is probably still irrelevant to you (not believing in God in the first place and all ;) ). However, I wanted to share this with you guys if only because I thought you might take encouragement from seeing at least one more progressive Christian standing up to and subverting the repulsive theology of the Fundamentalists in his own way (as I know many of you are often prodding more of us to do).

I also thought it might serve as inspiration for some of your own acts of subversion and resistance. How cool would an atheist Chick Tract be?! What might it be like? What would you include? And more importantly, would you be willing to pass it out on street corners or leave in lieu of tips at restaurants in order to spread the good news of atheism? ;)

(UPDATE: After I wrote that, I did a quick google search just to see if there were any atheist Chick tracts out there. I found this one.)

P.S. Speaking of the Rapture, apparently it was supposed to happen today. I guess I missed it. Can’t say I’m exactly surprised. :)

Mr. Deity & the Skeptic

Hey, Mike Clawson here again. Sorry I’ve been scarce around here this past year. Between going back to graduate school (working towards a PhD in Religion/History), and taking care of the kiddos so my wife could work on her book (Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices, now available on Amazon!) and travel for speaking gigs, I haven’t had much time to keep up with all the interesting conversations going on here at Friendly Atheist, much less post anything myself. However, I was surfing the web the other day and came across this hilarious video that I knew y’all would get a kick out of.

Basic premise: Michael Shermer dies and has to talk his way into heaven with Mr. Deity and “the Boy”.

Best Line: Mr. Deity – “Is your integrity worth an eternity of hell-fire? I don’t think so.” :)

Best Subtle Visual: Mr. Deity munching on a banana in the post-clip sponsor commercial.

Enjoy!



God’s Politics on the Atheist Bus Ads

Mike Clawson here again…

Eugene Cho, an emerging church pastor from Seattle, has commented on the atheist bus ads soon to come to his city over at Sojourners’ God’s Politics blog. In this post, as well as two others at his own blog, he rolls his eyes at fellow Christians who get all reactive and bent out of shape over these ads, and then lists three reasons why he sees these bus ads as good things:

1.  Christians shouldn’t feel entitled to anything. We live in a larger marketplace — if you will — and we need to compete to have our voice expressed and heard.  Maybe it’s my upbringing in San Francisco and living the past 12 years in Seattle, but while at times it’s tiresome, I enjoy living in a culture and context where the culture isn’t dominated by the christianese subculture.  Being a follower of Christ isn’t part of the cultural expectation but a choice that one must live out.

2.  I find it funny that “atheists” are identified by an opposition to the belief of God.  It’s a reactive belief system. To atheists:  What is your purpose?

3.  Conversation.  They’ve invested tons of money in these advertisements and, frankly, it’s probably been the greatest recent catalyst for conversation about God for many people and churches.  It’s like free advertisement for theists and Christians.

I also like his suggestion that as soon as some Christians in Seattle fund their own set of ads in response, he’s going to launch his own campaign and website:

http://can’twefindbetterthingstoinvestourmoneyinlikehomelesspovertywatereducationmalariaetc.com

I’d be all about that campaign. :)

Impeaching the Pope?

Mike Clawson here…

My wife has a new post up at the God’s Politics Blog (Jim Wallis’ organization) on a recent Washington Post editorial by Robert McElvaine suggesting that there ought to be a way for Catholics to impeach the Pope. She uses it as a springboard to talk about whether and how more progressive Christians should stand up to the extremist voices in our own religion that are giving all of us a bad name. She gives a shout out to y’all here at Friendly Atheist, noting that the bad behavior of fundamentalists and other loud and extreme Christian voices tend to drown out those of us who are trying to do some good through our religion, to the point where some of you guys have a hard time believing non-fundamentalist Christians are even out there. Anyhow, her main point is in agreement with what I’ve often heard many of you say here: that liberal and progressive Christians really need to start stepping up and stop letting the extremists hijack our religion.

Of course, given that the God’s Politics blog tends to act as a lightning rod for all the fundies who hate the idea of “progressive evangelicalism” in the first place, there’s been a lot of outrage directed at my wife’s post in the comments. I thought some of you here might be interested in checking it out and even possibly weighing in with an atheist perspective on the whole issue. I think it might help some of them to see how much even outsiders to Christianity also want to see liberal Christians standing up to the Right wing of our faith and not letting them get away with so much shit.

“Talk Amongst Yourselves”: Bertrand Russell Quote

Mike Clawson here…

I’m going to try something new. In addition to the typical posts I usually put up, I’m going to start occasionally just throwing out a quotation from something I’m reading or have encountered, sans commentary, and just invite any and all of you to comment, critique or reflect on it as you so desire. No agenda on my part, just stuff that I thought would be interesting to hear others’ thoughts on.

So here’s a Betrand Russell quote I encountered this morning. This is from his essay “A Free Man’s Worship”. To give the context, Russell has just quoted the Mephistophelian account of creation as the performance of a quite heartless and capricious being, and then he proceeds:

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.

How, in such an alien and inhuman world, can so powerless a creature as Man preserve his aspirations untarnished? A strange mystery it is that Nature, omnipotent but blind, in the revolutions of her secular hurryings through the abysses of space, has brought forth at last a child, subject still to her power, but gifted with sight, with knowledge of good and evil, with the capacity of judging all the works of his unthinking Mother. In spite of Death, the mark and seal of the parental control, Man is yet free, during his brief years, to examine, to criticize, to know, and in imagination to create. To him alone, in the world with which he is acquainted, this freedom belongs; and in this lies his superiority to the resistless forces that control his outward life…

Brief and powerless is Man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.

Do you resonate with Russell’s words? Do you resist them? Find them inadequate? What do you think of his main point? (In my best Mike Meyer’s impression) “Talk amongst yourselves…” :)

The Christians Beat You To It

Mike Clawson here…

Atheists may think they have the corner on baby-eating, but I was just recently reading a Christian text from the early third century that addresses some of the many accusations that Romans tended to make against Christians, and I noticed this:

The notoriety of the stories told of the initiation of new recruits [to Christianity] is matched by their ghastly horror. A young baby is covered over with flour, the object being to deceive the unwary. It is then served before the person to be admitted into their rites. The recruit is urged to inflict blows onto it – they appear to be harmless because of the covering of flour. Thus the baby is killed with wounds that remain unseen and concealed. It is the blood of this infant – I shudder to mention it – it is this blood that they lick with thirsty lips; these are the limbs they distribute eagerly; this is the victim by which they seal their covenant; it is by complicity in this crime that they are pledged to mutual silence; these are their rites, more foul than all sacrileges combined.

Seems we Christians were eating babies long before atheists came on the scene. :)

And the passage continues:

We all know, too, about their banquets… On a special day they gather for a feast with all their children, sisters, mothers – all sexes and all ages. There, flushed with the banquet after such feasting and drinking, they begin to burn with incestuous passions. They provoke a dog tied to the lampstand to leap and bound towards a scrap of food which they have tossed outside the reach of his chain. By this means the light is overturned and extinquished, and with it common knowledge of their actions; in the shameless dark with unspeakable lust they copulate in random unions, all equally being guilty of incest, some by deed, but everyone by complicity. For whatever may happen in individual cases is the general aspiration and desire of them all.

Baby eating and incestuous sex orgies! Now how are you going to compete with that? ;)

Book Review: Nature’s Witness

Mike Clawson (NOT Hemant) here…

Last month I promised a review of Daniel Harrell’s new book, Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith. This is a book written by a Christian pastor for other Christians, but on a topic that I know many of you have an interest in: the intersection of Christian faith and evolutionary science. I have written a more detailed review of the book from my own Christian perspective on my blog. However, there are a number of reasons I think some of you here may also appreciate this book. (And I do stress “some”. I realize that others of you here have nothing but contempt for any attempt by Christians to integrate their faith with scientific discoveries, and the only thing I can say is that if that’s the case, then this review is not for you and you may just want to skip over it.)

  1. This book takes the discussion well past the basic question of “Is it possible to reconcile Genesis 1 with evolution?” Since I answered that question for myself in the affirmative way back in high school, I’m a bit weary of books that rehash this discussion over and over again. Harrell thankfully spends little time on this. Instead he takes the discussion to the next level and asks “If we assume that evolutionary theory is true, what impact does it have on our conception of God?” As I mentioned in my previous post, Harrell points out that if God exists and is the creator of all things, then evolution is itself a creation of God, and therefore should be able to tell us something about God’s character and nature. In other words, he sees science as a positive source for his theology, not just a challenge to it. Throughout the book Harrell is engaged with the latest discoveries of biology, physics and cosmology, and often allows the science to inform and/or modify his beliefs about God.
  2. Harrell is brutally honest about the doubts and questions he has about his own faith, and about the difficulties evolution poses for his previous Christian beliefs. He doesn’t whitewash anything or pose any easy or overly simplistic answers. In fact, the bulk of the book is spent simply raising difficult questions. Indeed, he kept digging himself in so deep, there were times when I was almost convinced that Harrell would have no choice but give up his faith in the end (spoiler alert: he doesn’t). I really appreciate an author who writes with more humility than certainty, and who is willing to say “I’m not sure how this all works out, but here’s some possibilities.” It’s refreshing given the large number of books out there these days (on both sides) that take a more absolutist tone.
  3. He is thoroughly opposed to any kind of “God of the gaps” reasoning. Though the book itself only tangentially deals with reasons to believe in God (it’s not really an apologetics book after all, which will likely frustrate some atheist readers), when it does touch on the relation of God and science, Harrell is adamant that we not try to locate God merely in those areas where science does not yet have an answer. Instead he is clear that the Christian God is the God of nature, not in spite of it. As Harrell points out, “A natural explanation is not a godless explanation because God made nature. The natural world is evidence of his mind-blowing skill.” (70) Thus a “God of the gaps” approach simply misses the point.

At any rate, I would recommend this book either for atheists who have been of the persuasion that evolution is irreconcilably opposed to Christian belief and would be interested in hearing a differing viewpoint, or for ones who may find it useful to give to Christian friends or family to dissuade them from their hostility toward evolutionary science. I’d also recommend it for anyone who needs to be encouraged by the fact that not all people of faith have closed their minds to scientific truth. If any of these describe you, check it out.

The Highlight of Obama’s Address

Mike Clawson here one more time…

As with my atheist friends here, I too was thrilled when Obama mentioned non-believers, and also when he affirmed the importance of the sciences. However, my absolute favorite part of his address was when he spoke of global poverty, saying:

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

My apologies, since I know this probably has little to do with the kind of religious topics typically covered here at this blog (except in as far as this sort of thing is precisely what I think my own religion is all about), but nonetheless, this was the part that had me cheering, and hoping that he really meant it and will actually follow through. We have it within our power to stamp out extreme poverty in our lifetimes. My hope is that Obama will be the President to finally commit to doing it.

I Have Hope

obama-hopeMike Clawson here. This won’t have much to do with atheism or religion, but Hemant asked us to post our thoughts on the inauguration. Here’s what I posted on my blog and decided to cross-post here:

I don’t want to be naive about Obama and think that just because he’s President suddenly everything will get better. Nor am I a political partisan to be overjoyed simply that we have a Democrat in the White House now. Not to mention that though there is far more that I agree with Obama on than I did Bush, I still don’t agree with all of his positions or think he goes far enough in many areas (health care reform for instance). And of course my own Christian faith reminds me not to put too much hope in human leaders lest the State itself become an idol and object of devotion.

Nonetheless, I can’t help but feel somewhat hopeful today. It’s not just the inauguration of the first black President, though that alone is enough to make one hopeful about the progress made in race relations since Dr. King spoke of his great prophetic dream over 45 years ago. I am also hopeful because I honestly think Barack Obama will be a very good President. Nearly everything I’ve seen and read from him, I’ve been impressed by (and as a former Chicagoan, I’ve been following him quite a bit longer than most people from other parts of the country). Let me list just a few of the things that make me hopeful about him:

1) He’s intelligent. By all accounts, he’s the kind of guy who pays attention to details and really knows his stuff. In fact, he’s a bit of a policy wonk from what I hear, which is a great thing in my book, since I want a President who goes beyond the speeches and rhetoric to pay attention to the specifics of what he is enacting.

2) So far he really has been a uniter, not a divider. That was his track record as a State legislator in Springfield, IL, and he has shown that same tendency in recent weeks as he’s assembled his “team of rivals” for his cabinet, choosing people who don’t always agree with him, but will give him more honest and diverse viewpoints to consider. He’s also, on several recent occasions, expressed his openness to good ideas (especially in regards to fixing our economic crisis) no matter which side of the aisle they come from. I hope he keeps that up. And, besides his own actions, current polls show that he has an incoming approval rating of around 75%. Obviously the nation as a whole has largely come together behind this new president as well.

3) He really can, almost single-handedly, repair America’s standing in the global community. It’s no secret that Obama is practically a rockstar in many foreign countries. His name, his race, his personal story, not to mention his policies and positions, all speak to what is possible in this nation, and is inspirational to millions around the world. I hope this personal charisma will be combined with the new policies of openness and respect toward the rest of the world (no more of this unilateralism crap) to bring a new era of international cooperation.

4) Speaking of his personal story, I personally am given hope by the complexity of his background. Son of Kenyan and a white American, African-American in complexion (and therefore in the eyes of society as well) and yet raised by white relatives (and therefore more able than most to understand both perspectives), raised for a time in a foreign culture (and thus, once again, able to see the world through multiple different lenses), having given up a lucrative legal career to be a community organizer and use his skills to help those less fortunate… all of these experiences and more indicate to me that he is amply prepared to be exactly the kind of leader we need right now – someone able to weigh multiple viewpoints and competing truths, and choose a course based on what is good for all, not just for his own party, or even just his own nation. (BTW, for a great, and closer look at Obama’s story, check out the new book by my friends Bob and Ariele, Barack Obama: An American Story.)

5) Obama’s election campaign was one of the best I’ve ever seen. He raised his money (mountains of it) not from the usual cabal of special interest groups and lobbyists, but from millions and millions of ordinary Americans. He avoided the dirty politics and smear tactics that have become almost standard these days, even when his opponent was sinking to that level. By all accounts he listened to his campaign staff with respect, and yet was not controlled by them, sometimes sticking by his own convictions despite what might have seen most politically expedient (for example, his choice to respond to the Rev. Wright controversey by giving a substantive speech on race relations – written by himself, not a speechwriter – rather than just sweeping it under the rug as many pundits and advisors thought he should do). And through it all, he responded to every attack and every crisis with his usual implacable calm, cool-headedness. Let’s hope he carries all these traits with him into running the country as well.

6) Not to mention that his wife is just really cool. Just as smart as he is and a lot funnier, though also as down-to-earth as you’d expect from a Midwestern mom from a working-class background, Michelle Obama will make a great First Lady.

And all this has mainly to do with who he is or what he’s done in past. I won’t even get into the things I’m hopeful about regarding his policies and campaign promises. All I want to say is that I think he is definitely the right person for this job right now. He is what America and the world needs at this moment, and while I know he will never be able to live up to all of our hopes, I don’t think it is illegitimate to still be hopeful.

I also know that if Obama is going to fulfill any of these hopes it will have to be because we help him. As Jim Wallis often says (and as Obama has ripped off from him) “we are the ones we have been waiting for”. Now that Obama is in office, it’s time for all of us to get to work to fix the problems confronting us, and to make this world a better place, not just for Americans, but for the “least of these” all over the world. And that’s one more thing I like about Obama – he’s constantly reminding us of that fact. Over and over again in his campaign he referenced the fact that none of this was about him alone – it’s about all of us pulling together and working together to realize our hopes. And I do have hope that that is possible.

Helping Christians Accept Evolution

Mike Clawson here again…

I must have evolution on the brain or something lately. Anyway, I know that many of you here come from conservative Christian backgrounds, and even if you consider yourself an atheist now, you still have Christian friends and family with whom you interact. Perhaps this past holiday season included heated discussions about religion and science for some of you. Some of you may also know by now that sometimes in these discussions you have to set aside ultimate goals for proximate ones. So, for instance, while you might like for your whole family to stop believing in God altogether, you’d settle for them to just stop being quite so antagonistic towards science and especially toward evolution. If that’s the case, I’d like to recommend a book or two that I have found helpful in persuading my Creationist friends to not reject evolution out of hand.

The first is Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretation by Stephen Godfrey and Christopher Smith. It was written by two brothers-in-law, one of whom happens to be a Christian paleontologist (Dr. Godfrey) and the other a pastor and biblical scholar (Dr. Smith). Both describe their personal journey’s from literal six-day Creationism to an acceptance of evolutionary science and a more nuanced understanding of the Biblical texts. Godfrey does an excellent job of describing the science and showing why it doesn’t have to be seen as a direct challenge to Christian belief. Likewise, Smith talks about how his background in literary studies helped him come to a new way of reading and understanding the Bible in relation to the question of cosmology and natural origins – a way that makes room for things like an old earth and evolution, while still remaining faithful to the Bible as it was written.

One of the most insightful observations of the book for me, in fact, was when Dr. Smith pointed out that while the Genesis accounts were not ever meant to be read primarily as a factual, scientific description of the origin of the universe, nonetheless, the cosmology they describe actually is fairly “scientifically sound” for its day. In other words, given the kind of observations it would have been possible for ancient near eastern writers to have made about the world in 1000 BCE (or 1500 or 500 BCE, depending on when you think that section of Genesis was first composed), the biblical cosmology is not too bad. The people of that day were looking at the world and reaching the best description that they could with the instruments and set of knowledge that they had at the time. And isn’t that all science ever does? I mean, it’s not like the scientific descriptions we have today are complete either. They’re simply the best descriptions we have so far, given the instruments and set of knowledge we currently have. At any rate, Smith makes a convincing argument that the purpose of the Biblical accounts is not to convey scientific information anyway, and that six-day Creationist Christians misunderstand the point of the text when they try to make it answer those questions.

Once again, however, the point of a book like this is to convince fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christians that they can believe in both the Bible and evolution. If you’re not interested in that goal; if you’ll accept nothing short of getting your Christian friends and family to stop believing in the Bible altogether, then this book will be of no use to you. But if you’re willing to settle for lesser objectives and intermediate steps, or if you simply want to help win more supporters to the cause of good science regardless of their religious views, this can be a very helpful book.

Another book in a similar vein by Daniel M. Harrell is Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith. I’m currently reading it as a blog reviewer for my friends at Abingdon Press, so I’ll have a fuller review later, but, like the previous book, it also encourages Christians to see evolution as an ally, not an enemy. Harrell argues that if one believes that God exists, and is the Creator of all else that exists, then whatever that creation can tell us about itself (i.e. whatever we discover through science, evolution for instance) helps us understand more about God. Once again, however, he is writing for Christians who already believe in God’s existence, so you won’t find much in the way of apologetics aimed at convincing atheists  (indeed Harrell freely admits to his doubts about theism and acknowledges that faith is not certainty). The apologetics in this book, rather, are pro-evolution and aimed at conservative Christians. So once again, if you think you probably won’t be able to convince your religious friends to give up their faith, but might be able to convince them to give up their antipathy towards science, this is a good book to pass along.

Hope y’all find these resources helpful.