Straitened and Narrowed
I found Doug Frank’s [“Straitened & Narrowed,” November/December 1997] clarification of the constituents of authentic Christian faith interesting. If I understood him aright, his principles were that
- the proper wellspring of our creativity lies deep within the mess that is the center of our being, a center which is, as a first principle, broken, painful, and dark;
- we thus should embrace the anxiety, betrayal, hurt, and anger at our very core, and allow them to define us—this is the lived truth of human subjectivity;
- it is best to let loose of all doctrinal certainties and other sources of cheap equanimity, for in doing so we can find our authentic humanness;
- it is not “Truth” outside ourselves that will allow us to see the world better, but “ourselves” themselves;
- in contrast to the deception of thinking that we can know truth in any meaningful way and thus be “right,” the best state of the mind is unending openness and fluidity;
- God’s commands are really divine permissions which spontaneously generate a full flowering of being (and thus it turns out that God is not really that demanding or absolutistic after all);
- forget the arid abstractions and distillations of Paul and the early church fathers—the real Jesus was the rustic flesh-and-blood itinerant the “historical Jesus” scholars found decades ago; and
- this real Jesus drives us toward nothingness and beckons us to follow him off into the dark.
There’s just one thing I don’t understand. Why was it again that we call ourselves evangelical Christians?
Stanton L. Jones Wheaton College Wheaton, Ill
Myth of the White Male Promise Keeper
The secular media often portray the Promise Keeper movement as disproportionately composed of white males. I was surprised to see this myth perpetuated in Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen’s article [“Weeping Warriors,” November/December 1997]. She makes the following statement:
The insecurity and uncertainty such changes bring are hard on all men in a society that has identified masculinity with breadwinning, but middle-aged, middle-class white men are particularly vulnerable since they have been led for many decades to expect a steadily rising standard of living. So perhaps we should not be surprised that 84 percent of attendees at Promise Keepers rallies are white, and that their median age is 38.
The October 1997 U.S. Census Bureau’s population estimate shows that 83 percent of the U.S. male population is white. The same source shows that the median age of white males from 16 to 80 is 40. These data are very close to the 84 percent white and median age of 38 given by Van Leeuwen. Her contention that these data point to “insecurity and uncertainty” in middle-age white males is not supported by the facts. What the figures do show is that the attendees of pk events reflect the population of the United States.
William R. Womack Wheaton, Ill.
Soulless
Allen Guelzo, in his review of several books on consciousness [January/February] raises some questions in favor of Cartesian mind-body dualism in order, as I understand him, that we not “forfeit” our souls to a purely materialistic view of ourselves. As a Christian (fairly fundamental on central theological beliefs) and a physicist (Ph.D., experimental), I would like to raise a few observations that for me suggest a different approach to the conundrums in this area.
Assume for the moment, as I do, that mind, consciousness, and (perhaps, during life) soul are fully resident on the brain. What does this reduce them to? To the limited extent that I understand materialistic philosophy, matter is defined to be a straightforward summation of local, self-existent bits and pieces that have, in and of themselves, whatever (simple) properties may be applicable. From this point of view, notions such as mind and soul are reduced to meaninglessness. But such a definition of matter begs the questions and, furthermore, isn’t valid modern science.
For instance, fundamental particles considered in sufficiently close detail are the average of vastly many deviations from their observed properties. They are “held together by” conservation principles that are expressions of various global symmetries. The bottom line is that the supposedly local bits and pieces are not self-existent but depend, instead, on global, abstract properties for this existence.
Furthermore, particles cannot even be described adequately in terms of unique sets of parameters. (Roger Penrose’s belief about quantum mechanics seems to apply here.) In some situations, for instance, electrons can usefully be thought of as localized; they can be described as particles (but not as waves). In other situations electrons can only be usefully thought of as spread out; they must be described as waves (but not as particles). This set of facts bears the title “wave-particle duality,” and also shows that material existence, at its most fundamental level, is not purely local, but is dependent on interactions and relationships.
Thus, it seems to me that an epiphenomenon such as life can be seen as “emergent” from a properly construed materialistic view of chemistry, and that the higher order epiphenomena(on) of mind, consciousness, and (perhaps) soul can be seen as “emergent” from a properly construed materialistic view of chemistry/life/brain.
In all cases, the global situation would inform back on the local elements through the various relationships involved; mind would be a meaningful outcome of the summation of matter that is the brain because this matter would be in conformation with its global framework; and, ultimately, God at the eschatalogical level would inform back on, be the ground of being for, material existence at all levels. Thus, while I have only hinted at such a development in this letter, I would suggest that rather than attempting a return to Cartesian dualism we should accept that materialism is a valid description of the world but should develop it beyond its present simplistic formulation.
Thank you for a stimulating article that pushed me to put these thoughts together.
David Elwell Wooster, Ohio
As a long-time defender of mind-body dualism, I agree with Allen Guelzo that Christians need to spend more time thinking about the mind-body problem, and I agree with him that dualism is a view that deserves serious consideration, especially by Christians, who should not be swayed or intimidated by the fact that secular thinkers do not take dualism seriously. However, Guelzo appears not to be aware of what thinking is going on this area from Christians. He does not mention, for example, the recent book God and Consciousness, by Christian philosopher Charles Taliaferro, which defends dualism.
Most unfortunately, on the basis of one short review article, Guelzo criticizes Christian philosopher William Hasker quite unfairly. If Guelzo would take the trouble to read other things Hasker has written in this area, he would discover that Hasker himself defends a view that can be described as a type of dualism and has been so described by Hasker himself.
In general, the first order of business for Christians interested in dualism is to become aware of the different types of dualism that may be developed, and this is something notably lacking in Guelzo’s article.
C. Stephen Evans Calvin College Grand Rapids, Mich.
WFB at Dartmouth
Thank you for the interview with William F. Buckley [“Buckley on Belief,” November/December 1997]. I was intrigued enough at his comment, “I’ve never been invited in my life to give a college speech or a seminar about which the topic of religion was discussed,” that I invited him to speak at Dartmouth. Mr. Buckley accepted, and before a packed crowd of 700 people in Rollins Chapel, he spoke about Dartmouth’s responsibility to its Christian past. It was a great and historic moment, which has provoked discussion among people of all sorts of persuasions.
In ways beyond our imagination, the influence of your article will be felt on this campus for a long time.
Craig Parker Navigators Staff Representative Dartmouth College Hanover, N.H.
How Wide the Divide?
My former and respected professor at Fuller Seminary wrote some years ago that he had prayed to the Virgin Mary. When I read his own account of this in the old Reformed Journal, I was interested to see what Richard Mouw’s notion of “civility” to our Roman Catholic “dialogue partners” apparently entailed.
So too, his elegant review of How Wide the Divide? [“Can a Real Mormon Believe in Jesus?,” September/ October 1997] both urges and practices civility—this time with Mormon dialogue partners. I agree with Mouw that much of the polemical rhetoric that has historically transpired between evangelicals and the LDS is unfortunate. But I wonder if Mouw’s concern for civility in form may at times cheat matters of substance.
Mouw is rightly sympathetic with the desire on the part of the LDS to be properly understood. He refers to Steven Robinson’s plea that only “official” Mormon doctrine be entertained in dialogue. Such teachings as the Adam-God “theory,” being mere speculation, would now be uncivil to mention. And yet, it is just here that pertinent ambiguities arise. When Brigham Young taught Adam-God, he did so as “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” of the LDS church. There are, in LDS history, an uncomfortable number of instances in which today’s “theory” was yesterday’s revealed and required doctrine. The fact is, it’s no easy matter to discern “official” LDS doctrine. When an understandably embarrassing doctrine such as Adam-God is questioned, we are referred to the four “standard works” of the church. This is because such a doctrine is not taught there. On the other hand, when a doctrine is no longer believed (for example, the Book of Mormon’s teaching that there is only one, unchangeable God), we are referred to the “living prophet” who supersedes any dead prophet’s teaching.
In any case, Robinson may not be fully representative of orthodox Mormonism. Robinson both wants us to know that he is not an offical church spokesperson and to pay heed only to what is offical church teaching. Using his own distinction, it seems we ought to turn from Robinson’s doctrinal speculations in How Wide the Divide? and look instead to more official sources. Robinson downplays a number of Mormon distinctives.
For example, is the LDS “Jesus,” the spirit brother of Lucifer in the preexistence, our Jesus? Is it true that “the Christ” is more an office than a person in Mormonism? Is the drastically different lds understanding of Jesus as “the only begotten in the flesh” clearly expressed? When the First Vision is mentioned, which of the several conflicting accounts is intended?
While many good points are made in the Blomberg-Robinson exchange, it may be that what is left unsaid is of even greater significance. With Mouw, I agree that we ought not bear false witness against our lds neighbors by misrepresenting their beliefs. Yet, can one not bear distortive false witness as much through omission as commission?
Ronald McCamy Moorpark College Moorpark, Calif.
Copyright © 1998 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture. For reprint information call 630-260-6200 or e-mail bceditor@BooksAndCulture.com.
