Some of you may have noticed a week or so ago when the New York Times ran a front page article on the numerous LGBTQ student groups popping up on conservative Christian college campuses all over the country. The article especially focused on the institution where I am currently studying, Baylor University, which has such a group on campus but has yet to give official sanction to it. Sadly missing from the article, however, was any mention of my undergraduate alma mater, Wheaton College (IL) – which likes to somewhat arrogantly refer to itself as “the Harvard of Christian colleges” because of its academically rigorous reputation (though I’m pretty sure Harvard is not referring to itself as “the Wheaton of secular colleges”). Despite the fact that the reporter interviewed at least one gay Wheaton alumna while researching the article, Wheaton didn’t have any specific LGBTQ support groups among students or alumni that the article could point to.

Until today.

This morning, at 11am Central Time, representatives from the newly formed OneWheaton, a community of LGBTQs and allies from Wheaton College (alums and students) distributed the following letter outside of Wheaton’s mandatory chapel service, as well leaving copies of the letter at other various spots around campus (just to make sure no one would miss it):

Dear Wheaton Students,

The recent chapel message on Sexuality and Wholeness and surrounding conversations may have left some of you feeling alienated, ashamed and afraid. It can be difficult to see the danger of messages about sexuality that emphasize “God’s compassion for the broken,” but as a group of LGBTQ Wheaton alumni and allies, we’ve seen the devastating effects these words have had on ourselves and our loved ones. Many of us felt trapped and unable to respond honestly to these messages while we were students. We feared rejection from our friends and our college. We know many of you may fear the same and feel alone or depressed.

If you are a student and this is part of your story, your sexual identity is not a tragic sign of the sinful nature of the world. You are not tragic. Your desire for companionship, intimacy and love is not shameful. It is to be affirmed and celebrated just as you are to be affirmed and celebrated. In our post-Wheaton lives, we have traversed the contradictions we once thought irreconcilable. Our sexuality has become an integral part of our broader pursuit of justice, compassion and love. We can no longer allow ourselves or our loved ones to be trapped in environments that perpetuate self-hatred, depression, and alienation. As people of integrity we must affirm the full humanity and dignity of every human being regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

To the broader Wheaton community: remember that there are students who feel they need to hide. We remember how messages and conversations surrounding the “issue of homosexuality” often exacerbated our feelings of isolation, particularly when talk about “compassion” often felt like pity at best, or at worst intolerance cloaked in language of love. Speak against blatant and passive language and actions that dehumanize and marginalize your brothers and sisters. Ask questions. Encourage dialogue. Most of all, listen. Your friends need your support and love. As awkward as the process may be for you, it is guaranteed to be more deeply and constantly difficult for your friends.

For those of you feeling alienated, it gets better. After Wheaton our lives became stories of liberation. Some of us are in relationships and some of us are single. Yet none of us are alone. We have built communities that accept us and do not fear our LGBTQ-ness. You will find a community that, rather than alluding to acceptance contingent on celibacy, welcomes and loves you. It may come as a surprise, but these people will likely include your closest friends from Wheaton you might hide from right now. Never give up hope.

In the meantime we encourage you to reach out from your isolation. We have emerged from the closet to come forward as a quirky, beautiful, and diverse community that is excited to meet you. If you would like to talk to one of us, email one@onewheaton.com or visit www.onewheaton.com for some resources we have found helpful in our own journeys. And always, always remember that though you may feel isolated right now, we are witness to the fact that you are not alone in this experience.

With much love,
OneWheaton

It was followed by the signatures of several dozen Update: now well over a hundred now several hundred LGBTQ Alumni and Straight Allies (myself and my wife included). The distribution of the letter was also followed by the launch of both the website and a Facebook page, and a twitter hashtag #onewheaton (we even got a supportive tweet from actor Wil Wheaton ), where supporters can find out more.

As a former conservative Christian who actually became much more progressive and open minded about my faith during my time at Wheaton (despite the best efforts of its administration), I am thrilled by the efforts of my fellow alumni and proud to be a small part of this effort. It also reminds my why I bother to still keep a foot in that evangelical world rather than simply washing my hands of the bigotry often found in those circles. Despite all the ugly and unjust things that are perpetrated in the name of Jesus by many conservative Christians (things that anger and disgust me as a follower of Christ just as much as they anger and disgust my atheist friends), I continue to hold out hope that change is possible. In my past thirty years as an evangelical (and now post-evangelical), I have seen a real and positive shift in attitudes on a whole range of important social issues among that particular tribe of Christians, including the “gay” issue. It’s not just Hell that some Christians are rethinking (though it’s interesting to note that Rob Bell is a Wheaton grad too.) Attitudes towards gays and lesbians (and other sexual minorities) have also been opening up significantly among evangelicals in recent years. Progress is slow (as usual) but it is real. Or as Dr. King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

That’s why, as much as I’d personally like to put Wheaton in my rear view mirror and never look back, I can’t absolve myself of the responsibility to work for change when and where it seems possible. My hope (and yes, as a Christian, my prayer) is that these efforts will begin both to shift attitudes and maybe even eventually official policy at my alma mater. At the very least, it has already succeeded in letting current LGBTQ students there know that they are not alone, they are not broken, and that life can get better for them after Wheaton.

I know the answer many atheists would likely give to the question in the title of this post is “nothing”.

However, that may not always necessarily be the case. At least, not according to studies done by U. Penn researcher Ram Cnaan (who describes himself as nonreligious), who has somehow found a way to monetarily quantify all the benefits the average urban congregation brings to their community. According to his calculations the average urban church in Philadelphia provides over $476,663 worth of services annually.

Here’s an illustration from Christianity Today (PDF) for one particular Philadephia congregation whose annual give-back value is over $6 million (click image to enlarge PDF):

Now, I haven’t looked at the actual study, just the articles about it, so I can’t speak to the legitimacy of his methodology or findings. I’m sure, as with any study of this sort, there will be lots to nit-pick about it. Still, to even begin calculating all of these seeming intangibles is an impressive accomplishment, and it raises all sorts of interesting questions about the value of religion in society. But I will leave that topic for all of you to hash out.

That’s where you come in. I have a list of questions I want to ask him, but I’m afraid I might forget something important, or not ask him the one thing atheists have always wanted Christians to know about them. So that’s my question for y’all: If there’s anything you wish Christians would ask you to explain to them about atheism, what would it be? What is it that you would most want us to know?

Please keep in mind that the purpose of this event is not debate, but simply for my church community to come to understand atheism better, and perhaps sympathize with atheists more. I won’t be arguing with my guest about anything he has to say, just asking and listening and learning. So with that in mind, what should I ask?

Anyhow, I stumbled upon this satirical blog post by Kim Fabricius over at the Faith and Theology blog, entitled “Twelve point guide for ripostes to militant atheists,” and thought that some of you might find it humorous (or at least provocative) as well. Obviously his purpose is not to raise serious conversation on any of these points, but simply to light-heartedly point out that many Christians (though sadly not all, or even most) are just as aware of the problems with their faith as atheists are (and also that not all Christians agree with the worst versions of their faith). That, to me, even as a Christian myself, is a hopeful thing, inasmuch as I would like all people to be as honest with themselves about both the strengths and weaknesses of their own belief systems.

Anyhow, here is his list. Enjoy! (Though feel free to rip it to shreds if you prefer that approach.)

—Your faith is unreasonable.
—Your reason is unreasonable – and you have such faith in your scepticism.

—So, you’ve had a religious experience?
—What’s that? And what’s it got to do with God?

—The Gospels contain inconsistencies A, B, and C.
—You forgot X, Y, and Z.

—Darwin made the argument from design completely untenable.
—Er, Hume beat him to it.

—Creationists are morons.
—That smart?

—Theodicies are invariably unconvincing.
—Worse than that, they are inherently evil.

—Prayer plainly doesn’t work.
—Thank God!

—Religion is the opium of the people; it’s a crutch.
—Yeah, but science and technology are the crack cocaine; and you don’t limp?

—Who can believe in a God who sends his Son to die to appease his anger?
—Only the seriously disturbed.

—Religion is inherently violent.
—You mean violence is inherently religious.

—Give me one good reason to believe in the existence of God.
—The existence of atheists: the protest kind because they take God seriously, the petulant kind because God doesn’t take them seriously at all. Oh, and more conclusively: cats and baseball.

—You’re a fucking fool!
—Alas, you’re half right.

For his first counter-argument the author questions the logic of such a claim in the first place:

The first question I have for Harris and Dawkins is this, do other liberal and moderate things justify their extreme forms? For example if Harris drinks liberally or moderately shall we conclude that he lends credibility or legitimacy to alcoholism? Does his liberal behavior justify the tens of thousands of deaths each year which are attributable to alcohol abuse? Why? Why not? Does the pot smoker give credence to the heroin addict? How about politics? Does the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich lend credibility to the Bush administration era policies that led to torture, war and occupation? Is Kucinich guilty for associating with the political system despite his fierce criticism of U.S. Imperialism? Was it enough for congressmen to speak out against the Vietnam War? Or should they have rid themselves of all government? Following Harris’ logic one could also say that the child building a baking soda volcano for her science fair legitimizes the most dangerous nuclear weapons that we have ever known because they both employ science. Can you think of any other real world examples that the logic of Dawkins or Harris would actually apply to? Or is this only true when it comes to religion? If so, what is unique about religion that makes this principle valid?

He also points out that many liberal religious people are at the forefront of promoting both progressive, rational thought and social action:

If the new atheists engaged in modern theological study they would read things like this from Pacific School of the Religion (PSR) Biblical studies professor and Methodist lay minister Jeffrey Kuan, “All talk of God is a construct.” It was in my Bible studies class at PSR that I first learned that the Exodus was not a real historical event and it was in my Christian history class that my professor said, “You can’t prove the existence of Jesus.” It is also where I read “Is God a White Racist?” by the black theologian William Jones. Any mainstream or progressive seminary such as Harvard, Yale, Duke, Union, Emory, Pacific School of the Religion (PSR) or my school Starr King School teaches a critical, historical and scientific understanding of the Bible, Christianity and religion. If the goal is to get people reflecting on why they believe what they believe, to understand the history of Christianity and Empire, to see how patriarchy and racism are within traditional theology and to employ reason, science and archaeology in religion then the new atheists have a friend in many seminaries and religious institutions.

And anyone involved in causes like civil rights or the queer liberation movement knows that religious people are on the forefront of them. Yes, of course much of the bigotry advanced is done so by religious people and institutions. However, there are many queer religious leaders and lay people who are passionately engaged in issues of social justice and human rights. The “you’re either with us or against us” approach of the new atheists isn’t helpful because it negates the contributions of religious people in the reforming of religion and the resisting of injustice. The reality is that liberal religious people have done way more to effectively transform religion than any atheist ever has or will.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect that everyone here will agree with his arguments (and as he points out, he’s open to being persuaded otherwise), but either way, it is a well-written piece from someone (like myself) who is sympathetic towards atheist concerns and causes, and would prefer to see atheists and liberal religious people work together on the larger problems of society rather than being mutually dismissive of each other. I thought it might provide good fodder for discussion. You can read the rest of the article here.

Well, I finally got the graded paper back from my professor, and I have good news. Not only did he like the paper, he also explicitly affirmed that he’d be able to use it as the basis for including atheists next time around! Of course, this is only a small victory, but what it means practically speaking is that there is now at least one seminary here in the Bible Belt that will be actively sensitizing its future pastors to the plight of atheists in America, and the high degree of discrimination y’all face at the hands of religious Americans, and encouraging them to be more sympathetic and friendly towards you (in hopes that eventually they will teach their congregations to do the same). That, to me, is a very good thing.

Anyhow, thank you all so much for your help with this paper. It made a real difference. I wish I could post it here, but it’s rather long (20 pages). However, if anyone would like me to email them a copy, just let me know. Update: I just uploaded it to Google Docs, so if you’re interested you can find it here.

-Mike Clawson

I know that dozens of aid organizations, both religious and non-religious, governments and NGOs, have already sprung into action, and I have no doubt that the atheist community will be right there with and alongside all of these too. On behalf of my friends and the beautiful and desperate people of Haiti I urge you to join in and offer help as well in any way that you can, and through whichever organization you most prefer. (CNN has a good list of charitable options.) Personally I will be giving to the organization of which I have been a part that serves there in Marfranc, New Life for Haiti. Though it is a religiously-based group, the focus of their work is not proselytism. Instead NLFH focuses on building schools and clinics, educational sponsorships for children, and agricultural development. While I honestly don’t care which organization you send your support through (just do something!), I will say that one of the huge advantages of New Life for Haiti is that it is entirely volunteer run, so 98% of all funds will go directly to aid and development in Marfranc and the surrounding river valley, no organizational overhead or governmental middle-men to worry about. The plan right now, according to my friend Fran Leeman who heads the NLFH, is to put all donations into helping the people of Marfranc rebuild their homes. As Fran put it:

Our organization, New Life for Haiti, is accepting donations to buy cement to help rebuild homes in Haiti. I can guarantee you that despite all the various aid from governments that will flow into Haiti in the weeks ahead, homes will not be rebuilt. The immediate aid will be medical, clearing rubble from roads, and getting Port au Prince’s already crumbling infrastructure (roads, electric, water) operable. All these are necessary, but for our part as a small organization, we are are going to look beyond the next few weeks to rebuilding homes in the area where we work. You can donate to buy cement that will rebuild a home at http://newlifeforhaiti.org. If you are part of a church or other community, please ask them to take a special offering for Haiti relief. There are many good organizations those funds can be given to. If you would like to send it our way, we will use 100 percent of it well.

At any rate, once again, I don’t care which organization you send support through – just choose the one that best fits your own ideals and personal concerns – but please, please, do something. The extreme poverty Haitians lived in every day was already unimaginable, even before the quake. I can’t even get my head around what they must be going through now. And this isn’t just some place on the other side of the world (as if that should matter). Haiti is less than an hour and a half flight from Miami. They’re right next door.

It was sitting on top of this:

So some of you know that I am currently back in graduate school working towards a PhD in Religious History. This affords me lots of opportunity to read fascinating books and contemplate interesting ideas, unfortunately it doesn’t often afford me much time to actually write about any of them, either here or at my own blog. However, the other day I was reading about the history of Methodism in America and came across an interesting paragraph that made me wonder about a few things that I really wanted to run by you all here. Speaking of the struggles over slavery among Methodists in the mid-nineteenth century, Frederick Norwood writes:

“In slavery we have a clear case of the unavoidable mingling of church history and economic history. Try as they would to stay out of secular affairs, churchmen were caught up in events. Slavery, slave revolts, and the underground railroad pressed in upon the church as powerfully as upon business and finance. Churchmen might claim to stay out of politics – but they could not.”

Let me first just say that I very much support the separation of church and state. I don’t want any government dictating to people what they have to believe, nor do I want any religious groups trying to legislate their own morality on others. I am especially angered and embarrassed by the political agenda and actions of the Religious Right who are explicit about their desire to “take back America for God.” On this issue, I stand united with the atheists here for the continued separation of church and state.

However, Norwood’s account of the abolitionist movement among Methodists 150+ years ago reminded me once again that sometimes things are not quite so cut and dried. You see, while I support the separation of church and state, I also strongly support numerous other social justice causes – e.g. racial reconciliation, the abolition of modern slavery, fair wages and fair trade, environmental protection, active international peacemaking, Third World debt reduction, immigration rights, women’s rights, GLBT rights, etc. – and actively encourage other Christians and churches to do the same, not just as an add-on to their faith, but as an essential component of it. According to my own personal understanding of Christianity, these sorts of things are inseparable from the meaning of the gospel. However, these issues are also inherently “political”. I can’t get involved in these issues without stepping onto the turf of “the State”.

Now of course I can do this as an individual citizen with no problem, but what about as a pastor? (I no longer lead a church community, but I did for three years, and often faced this dilemma.) Am I crossing a line by encouraging my members to actively engage with these issues? Should a church community take up a social cause, abolishing modern slavery or supporting GLBT rights for example, that directly involves influencing the legislative process? Is that blurring the line between church and state too much?

Also, does it make a difference to you that my faith leads me to support “liberal” or “progressive” social causes, versus “conservative” ones? I mean, I’m still attempting to “impose my own religious morality” on society – it just so happens that my particular religious morality leads me, for instance, to support rights for GLBT folks rather than restrict them. But should that make a difference? Does the “wall of separation” only protect us from religious opinions we don’t happen to like?

And before any of you answer too quickly in favor of the church staying completely out of politics regardless of the issue, stop and consider the historical examples. Do we tend to applaud and affirm the numerous churches who just stood on the sidelines of the slavery issue and refused to take a stand way back then? Or fast-forward to the Civil Rights era – would most of us have preferred that Martin Luther King Jr. had just kept his mouth shut, since, after all, he was speaking and acting as a religious leader out of a religious motivation (don’t forget that the organization he founded was called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference)? Do we tend to look favorably on the many, many other church leaders who just stood by in that fight and refused to stand with MLK because he was just “too political”? Was it okay for them to avoid speaking out for justice by hiding behind “separation of church and state”?

Or to take an even more extreme example, what about Nazi Germany? I am currently taking a class on the life and theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor who was among a handful of clergymen that actively took a stand against the Third Reich, and who eventually ended up being executed in a prison camp for participating in a plot to assassinate Hitler. Do we say that Bonhoeffer did the right thing by getting involved in “politics”, or should he have just stayed out of it, as so many other churchmen did back then? Don’t we typically condemn the church (Lutheran, Catholic, whatever) for not having the courage to speak out against Hitler and his genocide against the Jews when they had the chance? But of course, for them to do so, as Bonhoeffer did, would have required a suspension of any kind of separation of church and state.

So I guess that’s my question – in your opinion, is the separation of church and state an absolute principle, or do exceptions apply for matters of social justice? And if the latter, then where do we draw the line? How much involvement is too much, and when is it not yet nearly enough?

Again, when I was a pastor this was a question I had to deal with on a regular basis. I have my own thoughts on it, but my mind is in no way settled on the issue, so I would be very much interested to hear yours as well.

Peace…

This one by Lauren Sandler cites a few scientific studies (including one highlighted by Richard Dawkins, and another conducted by Michael Shermer) to suggest that women are more religious than men because they are evolutionarily, biologically, or psychologically conditioned to be more emotional or social and therefore less rational than men.

This response by Jessica Glaser at Emerging Women, on the other hand, points out that this hypothesis is exceptionally condescending and not really that much different than the same old sexist arguments that have been used to denigrate and restrict women for centuries. She challenges the notion that women are less rational than men, or that the greater religiosity of women over men is evidence of or explained by such a hypothesis.

What say you?