I just wanted to highlight for you all an interesting article in the Huffington Post: Frequent Bible Reading Tied to Social Justice, Openness to Science.

Aaron Franzen, a recent graduate from Baylor’s Masters program in sociology (I’m personally pursuing a PhD in Baylor’s Religion Department, but I’ve heard good things about their sociology program as well) found that increased Bible reading among Christians reading correlated positively with an increased degree of what we might call social progressivism (though not on all issues). For instance, the Huff Post article notes that:

In many cases, Franzen found frequency of Bible reading was one of the most powerful predictors of attitudes on moral and political issues. Consider some of the findings:

• The likelihood of Christians saying it is important to actively seek social and economic justice to be a good person increased 39 percent with each jump up the ladder of the frequency of reading Scripture, from reading the Bible less than once a year to no more than once a month to about weekly to several times a week or more.
• Christian respondents overall were 27 percent more likely to say it is important to consume or use fewer goods to be a good person as they became more frequent Bible readers.
• Reading the Bible more often also was linked to improved attitudes toward science. Respondents were 22 percent less likely to view religion and science as incompatible at each step toward more frequent Bible reading.
• The issues seemed to matter more than conservative-liberal tags. In the case of another major public policy debate, same-sex unions, nearly half of respondents who read the Bible less than once a year said homosexuals should be allowed to marry, while only 6 percent of people who read the Bible several times a week or more approved of such marriages.

Among other issues, more frequent Bible readers also were more likely to oppose legalized abortion, the death penalty, harsher punishment of criminals and expanding the federal government’s authority to fight terrorism.

Of course, it’s important to note that this study only shows a correlation, not causation. Nevertheless, these findings are interesting and somewhat counterintuitive for many on all sides of the issues. For instance, many of both my conservative evangelical and my liberal atheist/secularist friends would likely assume that the more one reads the Bible, the more socially and politically conservative one is likely to be — and while that must be the case for some, apparently for others, reading the Bible could just as easily be a sign of more liberal attitudes, at least on some issues (though, sadly, not on abortion or gay marriage).

On the other hand, perhaps this shouldn’t come as quite such a surprise, at least for Christians like myself who followed precisely the path described in this study — the more I read the Bible, the more socially progressive I became. And in my case at least, it was a matter of causation. I was a very conservative Republican evangelical as a teenager and young adult, existing mostly within a very closed conservative Christian bubble. It wasn’t any outside liberal influences, then, that pushed me to become more open to science, more concerned about economic justice and issues of social equality, and just more liberal in general. No, (and I often find my atheist and conservative Christian friends quite incredulous on this point, but I assure you it’s true) I became a “liberal” precisely by reading the Bible more intensely and closely. I was struck in particular by the overwhelming attention to economic justice and concern for the poor in the Bible (around 3000 verses), especially in comparison to the much more meager number of references to issues of sexual morality (around 40 verses). This then led me to begin questioning much of my conservative political ideology.

Likewise, I was led by my studies into the historical and literary context of the biblical writings to become much more flexible in my understanding of them, and thus far more able to see them as compatible with scientific truths. The more I came to understand the kind of literature the biblical documents actually are (a diverse collection of various types of Ancient Near Eastern literature), and began to read them as such, the less likely I was to demand that they be what conservative Christianity wants them to be (i.e. inerrant historical and scientific texts). So, for instance, I came to embrace a form of theistic evolution (i.e. the belief that evolutionary processes are not incompatible with God’s existence), not because I was convinced by the science and then tried to make the Bible fit it. Rather, I was first convinced through my study of scripture that Genesis 1 simply wasn’t scientific or historical writing in the first place, and that to attempt to read it as such just misses the point.

Anyhow, I bring this up not because I’m interested in debating these particular subjects here, but simply to illustrate how the findings of Franzen’s study might play out in the lives of individual progressive Christians like myself. In my own case, I have continued to go even further than many of the subjects in his study. My ongoing study of scripture (along with other things) has pushed me to become, for instance, fully supportive of LGBTQ rights and women’s reproductive rights (though I would like to see abortion kept safe, legal, and rare). Indeed, I would venture to guess that my ongoing reading of the Bible has made me even more “liberal” than a good many folks here – especially regarding socio-economic issues, about which I embrace a form of social democracy known as Christian Marxism (a la Cornel West). But that’s a whole other discussion!

At any rate, I’m always interested in studies like this that defy the conventional wisdom – especially when they suggest that folks like me perhaps aren’t as rare as I once feared (as this other article also does).

Honest question: Has any major church submitted a video for this campaign? I’m assuming no — the last thing the Christian church wants to do is make anything better for the GLBT community — but maybe someone can prove me wrong…

Edit: I should’ve added: I know many individual Christians, including Mike Clawson on this very site, have been incredibly supportive of GLBT rights. The Evangelical Christian world, on the other hand, is anything but a friend to GLBT people. So while I don’t mean to speak of the “church” as one entity, the largest congregations — usually, the black churches and the evangelical megachurches — have not done anything to advance civil rights in this case.

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.

I posted about this program a couple years ago. Since most of it is still relevant, I wanted to repost it here (with a couple edits to fix links).

…

To nobody’s surprise, LifeWay Christian Stores sells Christian books among their many products. As any reader of these books knows, however, the authors can range anywhere from super-fundamentalist to relatively-liberal.

To help their customers out, LifeWay now puts a label on certain books stating “Read With Discernment”:

While we recognize that almost every title requires some measure of discernment, certain titles should clearly be read with extra discernment.

…

We want you to know that the authors of books marked Read with Discernment may have espoused thoughts, ideas, or concepts that could be considered inconsistent with historical evangelical theology.

(That saying is trademarked, too, so don’t get any ideas.)

What’s the issue here?

The books that are on the “discernment” list include books by authors such as Rob Bell and Donald Miller — both authors who, from my readings of their books, seem to be Bible-believing Christians… but who also don’t think being gay is that big of a deal and who think Christians ought to give a damn about the poor.

Heathens.

Which book doesn’t have the discernment label?

The Bible? (They don’t even put the atheist warning label on it.)

Julie Clawson, a Christian, says it well:

… I’m disturbed by the unspoken implication that the other books sold at their website don’t need as much discernment while reading. Apparently, if something agrees with historical evangelical theology then it gets a pass on reading with a critical eye. We only need to be discerning about those that are discerning about historical evangelical theology since such opinions are only valuable to those those who engage them “strictly for critical study and research.”…

Another Christian blogger also points out:

The irony is that [LifeWay] will take your money while they sell you — what they consider to be — theological trash.

Not that there are really any atheist bookstores, but if there were, can you imagine them *ever* pulling any shenanigans like this?

I don’t. We have nothing to be afraid of. We enjoy the fact that some books may challenge our current ways of thinking. We think all books should be read with discernment.

I wonder: What are LifeWay’s customers so afraid of finding in those read-with-caution books? What will happen to them if they read those books without reading the warning first?

I also wonder: Can my book get one of those labels? Pretty please…? I want to be on the blacklist! Read me with discernment, dammit!

(via onehandclapping)

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.

President Obama supports the right for Muslims to build the mosque, though he took no official stance on whether it should be built.

White House officials said earlier in the day that Mr. Obama was not trying to promote the project, but rather sought more broadly to make a statement about freedom of religion and American values. “In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion,” Mr. Obama said at the Coast Guard station. “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

“And I think it’s very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the right to build it and the building of it:

“I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state — as important a test as we may see in our lifetimes — and it is critically important that we get it right,” the mayor said.

…

“To cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists,” he said, “We should not stand for that.”

The New York Times supports the building as well:

Instead of caving in to the angry voices — many but not all of them self-promoting Republican politicians — commissioners paved the way for construction of the mosque and Islamic center. It was not just the right thing to do, it was the only thing to do.

Sam Harris supports the right to build a mosque, though he objects to this mosque in particular:

Should a 15-story mosque and Islamic cultural center be built two blocks from the site of the worst jihadist atrocity in living memory? Put this way, the question nearly answers itself. This is not to say, however, that I think we should prevent our fellow citizens from building “the ground zero mosque.” There is probably no legal basis to do so in any case — nor should there be. But the margin between what is legal and what is desirable, or even decent, leaves room for many projects that well-intentioned people might still find offensive.

…

The claim that the events of September 11, 2001, had “nothing to do with Islam” is an abject and destabilizing lie. This murder of 3,000 innocents was viewed as a victory for the One True Faith by millions of Muslims throughout the world… And the erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory — and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice. This may not be reason enough for the supporters of this mosque to reconsider their project. And perhaps they shouldn’t. Perhaps there is some form of Islam that could issue from this site that would be better, all things considered, than simply not building another mosque in the first place. But this leads me to a somewhat paradoxical conclusion: American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero; but the ones who should do it probably wouldn’t want to.

Personally, while I agree with Harris that there is a major problem with Islam in general and certainly a lot of reluctance to admit that by moderate Muslims, I think this building would do more good than harm. It’s a chance to show the rest of the world — especially the theocratic, Muslim world — how Americans respect religious freedom and don’t act out of fear, prejudice, and bigotry.

There are good arguments against building it, though, and I don’t think being opposed to it automatically makes you a bigot (even though there’s quite a bit of overlap between those two groups).

I really appreciated this post from Christian Julie Clawson (who is married to a contributor to this site, Mike Clawson) :

… there are many Christian Americans who have spoken out against this centre, claiming that it is inappropriate and offensive, and that its proximity to Ground Zero would allow Muslims to mock the events of 9/11. Since speaking out in support of the centre, I’ve even had other Christians accuse me of supporting the work of Satan and turning my back not only on my faith, but on everything the United States stands for.

…

… Some Christians unfortunately say that the terrorists’ actions represent the heart of Islam. They project their fear and hatred onto all Muslims, blaming them for those events and asserting that they desire the destruction of Christianity and America’s freedoms.

Ironically, many of these same people are the first to argue when so-called Christians commit heinous acts that they do not act on behalf of all Christians. They go so far as to say they aren’t actually Christians, much less representative of the religion…

But this same distinction is rarely extended to our Muslim brothers and sisters.

Very true.

I think she’s wrong later on when she writes that 9/11 is inconsistent with Islam — there is undoubtedly a strong connection between the two and the terrorists really believed they were following the will of Allah.

Still, when we’re talking about the actual bigots who oppose this mosque for ridiculous reasons, it seems very hypocritical for Christians to say all Muslims act the way the extremists do.

The Economist puts all this in context when talking about Sarah Palin‘s response to the mosque (she obviously was against it):

In a tweet last month from Alaska, Ms Palin called on “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the “ground-zero mosque” because it would “stab” American hearts. But why should it? Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modelling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions. The site was selected in part precisely so that it might heal some of the wounds opened by the felling of the twin towers and all that followed. True, some relatives of 9/11 victims are hurt by the idea of a mosque going up near the site. But that feeling of hurt makes sense only if they too buy the false idea that Muslims in general were perpetrators of the crime. Besides, what about the feelings, and for that matter the rights, of America’s Muslims — some of whom also perished in the atrocity?

It’s been a couple months since I last mentioned this topic, but has anyone’s views changed on whether or not the mosque should be built? I’d be curious what made you change your mind one way or the other.

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