Interview with a Wiccan

I had an interesting conversation the other day. In a small town in the South, rarely do I encounter people who are open about their alternative religious beliefs. So, I was delighted when I happened upon a Wiccan the other day. I talked to him for about forty-five minutes. Since alternative and occult religions are an academic passion of mine, I asked him some pointed questions about his faith. I thought I’d recount his answers (as best I can) for you here.

Though formerly involved in a coven, this Wiccan now practiced on his own, not adhering to any specific method (like Gardnerian or Alexandrian) – just a smorgasbord of rituals that meant something personally to him. He had only met one other Wiccan locally. I told him that there were others – that I had met a young lady who practiced Wicca about three years ago.

I asked him if he believed in a personal God. He said, “Yes, I believe in God and that he can be personally known and that everyone should seek to know God. However, I also believe that all the earth’s religions have similar themes to those found in Christianity. So to exalt Christianity above other religions is inappropriate.”

I asked him what he thought about Christians. “They don’t seem to follow their own precepts very well. I believe in the Wiccan Rede and the Law of Three that basically expresses the same ideas found in the ‘golden rule.’ Yet, Wiccans are much more tolerant and gracious than most Christians I have met.” I apologized for the behavior of the Christians he had known that had offended him.

I asked about his religious background. Surprisingly, he told that he had been raised old-line Pentecostal. The legalism associated with what to wear and how to behave left him unsatisfied with his experience. When I asked him specifically about the emotional manifestations he observed within the church and the use of spiritual gifts, he said, “Oh I have no problem with that. That was their way of allowing God to touch them.”

“Oh really?” I said.  “So spiritual experience is not a bad thing?” “Not at all,” he said. I asked him if the prospect of spiritual experience had drawn him to Wicca. He said it absolutely had and that personal spiritual experience is the desire of all Wiccans. “So you rejected the overt legalism of your Christian upbringing but not your belief in experience?” He said, “Yes, I found the experience elsewhere.”

Then I asked him one of the most common criticisms of Wicca I read. “Doesn’t that make you unaccountable in your religion?” He firmly responded, “Oh no – I’m not accountable to some guy in a suit who tells me I’m supposed to do what he says. I have never given any minister that right. But I am most certainly accountable to God for what I do. Wiccans are very moral and their belief in a higher power leads them to a higher standard of ethics than most Christians. I am accountable to God and not to another human.”

Once I got him started, he rarely came up for air, simply happy to find someone who wouldn’t judge him and dismiss his beliefs. And he knew I was a minister. That didn’t bother him – I was someone interested in his life choices. I didn’t try to convert him or prove him wrong when he attacked the Bible or told me about some of the things other Christians had called him at his employment. But I did say this: “I am really sorry for the behavior of other Christains. I hope you know I would never say that to you. Though I don’t agree with everything you say, I hope you know that I value your choice of religion. You have taught me a lot today. I would love to come back and talk to you some more in the future. Is that cool?” He said it was and that he would look forward to it.

I’ve said this before: people don’t care about your correct doctrine until they know for certain that you care about them as people. Only when that trust has been established are they willing to entertain the possiblity of your beliefs. People who evangelize others like they are a point on a scorecard or a notch on a belt really misrepresent the heart of the Father. People don’t care what you know until they know that you care.

Dilettante Dads

Here’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. We live in a world of specialization. The more of an “expert” you are in a particular field of interest, the more chance you have to secure your position as a person of importance and relevance. People spend their lives grasping for that level of expertise and our culture rewards those that give their heart and soul to a discipline, field, or technique. That’s easier for us. We then have a label. “Oh, he’s the medical/business/intellectual expert.” “She’s the manager/attorney/fashion expert.” We feel secure believing that we know everything we need to know about a person with one specialized label. I watch students struggle with this in college. When they ask, “What should be my major?” what they are really asking is “They are asking me to pick a label. What should my label be?”  

Fatherhood flies in the face of that notion. Fatherhood requires us to be well-rounded. A jack of all trades and a master of none. Furthermore, good fathering requires you to be present with your family rather than honing your skills of expertise. You hear this from dads all the time. They often talk about when they used to do something in particular, but the time they spent doing it was only for a few short years. Their areas of growth and knowledge center upon whether their children are into fishing or ballet or baseball or long division. And when their children move on, they do, too. So, for fathers (and many mothers), life becomes a race to cram everything they can into a work day and then shift gears by focusing on their family oriented ”expertise.” So in the end, fully invested fatherhood requires one to choose to not be an expert at anything. To be a Renaissance man. A dilettante. Someone who dabbles in areas of knowledge and skill without formally mastering any particular area. An amateur at everything.

Beth told me a story about a well-known and accomplished businessman and university president who was a guest speaker in one of her college classes. They class asked each visiting lecturer the same question: what is the single most important business advice you could give a college student? This formidable individual thought for a moment and then said, “Learn to play golf. Most business connections and profitable deals are not made in an office or over email. They are made on the golf course.”  I’m praying that this guy is wrong. Or at least that there’s another way to be successful. To me, success at my family’s expense is ultimately failure. So, I’m putting my eggs in another basket: the belief that I can remain professionally relevant and spiritually poignant while spending as much time as possible deeply invested in the lives of my children. The bigger payoff seems to lie there. Call it a hunch…but that’s what I’ll be doing. Check back in two decades and we’ll see if the gamble was worth it.

What Can We Know About Heaven and Hell?

I’ve heard a lot of sermons on heaven and hell. Too many I think. But I have noticed something interesting in the last few years: the detailed accuracy with which people describe both eternal places. Preachers seem to know everything about heaven and hell. Particularly hell. And that strikes me as strange for a couple of reasons.

First, the New Testament language about heaven is pretty vague. Certainly not up to our Western standards of rational detailed analysis. Most heavenly images are taken from Revelation which is clearly a book of symbols and Jewish apocalyptic imagery. Plus we have various experts describing heaven in detail for us, even down to what kind of house we get and what types of jobs will be waiting for us. Honestly, despite the popularity of Randy Alcorn’s book, most of that is conjecture. Peacefulness, joy, and comfort certainly describe it, but most people understand that golden streets and crystal seas are illustrations for something truly indescribable. People are okay with a preacher saying, “I don’t know everything about heaven, but I know it’s gonna be good!”

What’s more fascinating is the painstaking detail in which hell is described. Eternal torment involving fire, pain, and torture. According to most evangelial views of hell, people have the rest of eternity to sit around on fire and think about the bad things they did. Okay, that’s a little sarcastic there, but honestly hell is used more often in altar calls than heaven is. Some people, just in my questioning of the standard image of hell are getting nervous reading this right now. But what’s so strange about that is just how ambiguous the Bible is about the afterlife. People are satisfied to know that God has prepared somewhere for them in heaven and that puts their lack of detail at ease. But hell is a different story. In fact, the more detailed you can be, the better chance of scaring someone into salvation.

But really, hell is even more ambiguous than heaven. The Old Testament uses the word sheol to describe the afterlife – a word that means “grave” and little more. The Jews were relatively unconcerned about the afterlife, fully content to focus on what they could do in the present life to honor God. The New Testament seems to be more exact. But a closer look shows that there’s still much to debate. Jesus describes some ideas about it, but never really gives us details. He compares it to a local garbage dump (Gehenna) and talks about worms. And there’s more. The Greek word (aiōnios) generally used to describe the fire of hell is translated in as “eternal” – a period of time.  But in other places, the same word is used to describe an act of permanence of destruction – a state of quality. So, traditionalists say that it means eternal fire while conditionalists say it means permanent destruction (death) of the wicked. But the truth is that aiōnios and its Hebrew counterpart (olam) speak of things that all come to an end: the Passover, Caleb’s inheritance, Solomon’s Temple, and Gehazi’s leprosy. It’s just not that simple – the word means both. Similarly, traditionalists say that “gnashing of teeth” describes the torment of sinners in hell. But the ancient use found in the Old Testament assigned “gnashing of teeth” to someone about to destroy another – in the conditionalist’s case: God. So what does that mean to us today?  Honestly, it doesn’t tell us much.  And that’s the point I’m making. The same verses are used by people who believe different things about hell. And, surprisingly, I’m okay with that.

Why can we leave the details of heaven alone yet be compelled to extract every detail about hell? Because hell helps preachers out. Descriptions of hell illicit responses from people and, if used just right, can increase altar call numbers. But in doing that, I think we miss the point. When I told someone the other night that the gospel is not about them not going to hell, they looked at me strangely. They simply had never thought that there might be something beyond “fire insurance” and a list of do’s and don’ts to the gospel. The Bible shrouds the afterlife in ambiguity for a very important reason: so we won’t be tempted to bribe people into the Kingdom of God using either heaven or hell. If that’s what made you decide to be a Christian, then great. But intimacy with God lies beyond such ”survival of the fittest” techniques of evangelism. The gospel is about falling in love with a God who has already declared his unconquerable love for you.

Life Lessons Learned From TV

My wife loves “So You Think You Can Dance.”

I (by contrast) hate it.

Yet, while feeding the baby or folding laundry, I am subjected to an unconscionable amount of this show. I really don’t mind that much – sometimes I get into it. But the most interesting thing about the show is the critiquing of the judges. I know, I know. You were thinking it was the dancing that fascinates the nerd within. Sorry to disappoint… 

We were watching last week and the judges said some things that really interested me as someone who deals with people’s perception of right and wrong on a regular basis. Channing Cooke with Phillip Attmore had just finished a jive routine that seemed to be done well. It’s early in the program so the judging tends to be a little softer at this point. I perked up at Mary Murphy’s comments. She was impressed but pointed out that the couple’s leg movements were not up to par. Now, this is the part that caught my attention: she attributed their lack of sharpness to laziness. There’s something significant about that. Mary attributed their deficiencies to a personal lack of internal moral motivation. Nigel Lythgoe went next. He commented on the same lack of sharpness, but attributed it to the couple not quite being in shape for the dance style. In essence, he said their tiredness resulted in the lack of sharpness - a much softer critique attributed to external factors, not their personal integrity.

As a minister, I began to reflect on how such a simple change in perspective can make criticism harsh or constructive. The church walks a fine line in this regard. We deal with issues of the heart but have to be careful not to make a difficult situation look hopeless. If I was physically incapable of performing a task and was told that my failures were intrinsic/moral, I would feel crushed under that assumption. And that’s all it is – an assumption. We don’t have access to the motivations of others. We merely have the outward manifestation of those intentions. Often times, bad intentions are easy to spot based on the actions that follow. But there’s plenty of gray area where intentions are hidden. Some people automatically chalk up the suspect behavior of others to time-honored doctrinal catch phrases like “Original Sin” or assume that failure is always preventable. When tarred with the moral brush, that will always be assumed. But sometimes people are just weak and scatter-brained and frail. Grace gives the benefit of the doubt in those situations. “Bad” does not always equal “weak.” After all, Jesus gave rest for the “heavy laden,” not the morally corrupt.

That’s why I liked Nigel’s critique better. When you’re a world-class dancer (or anything else for that matter) it’s easy to moralize/spiritualize the amount of work required to be the best in a given field. It helps us tolerate the extreme conditions in which that expertise is developed to the detriment of other areas of our well-being. Mary, at least at this moment, seemed to be trapped inside that paradigm. Nigel transcended above it. He gave grace by attributing that weakness to joints, ligaments, and muscles – something to be strengthened – rather than to inherent laziness – something to be ashamed of. Preachers know that both of these can motivate. But which one preserves the dignity of others? As Christians continue to confront sin, we need to spend less time making sure we call “a spade a spade” and more time concerned with making sure we never call something a spade when it’s really just a heart or a club. Guilt can motivate – there’s no doubt about that. But grace preserves and strengthens. I’ll go with Nigel’s approach anytime.

Come Join the Revolution!

I have a unique opportunity to share with you during the upcoming Advent season…

A few years ago, TFUMC (as part of the Advent Conspiracy movement) launched something called Advent Revolution. We asked our congregation to spend $50 less  on Christmas gifts per person and give that money to an international cause. We chose World Help - an organization that helps fight poverty, disease, and lack of education in over 40 countries. We have raised roughly $25,000 each year to build homes for orphans and families affected by the Rwandan genocide. It’s been one of the most rewarding events our church has ever undertaken. Along with our yearly Advent Revolution ministry, we have sent groups of missionaries to help build the homes and minister to the locals on a personal level.

The most rewarding part of the process is the personal connections we’ve made with the people of Rwanda. We’re no longer giving money to an idea or concept or even images on a brochure cover. We’re now giving to people with names and faces who know us as well. For example, recently a church member gave money to help a former prostitute named Diana finish her university education. Since Diana’s personal conversion, she has also led several women out of that same bondage. Our team met Diana on our last mission trip and heard her testimony of receiving Christ. She brought a friend with her that day and the team prayed with him to receive Christ as well.

We’ve managed to cause a stir in the process.  The United Methodist periodical The Interpreter is featuring Advent Revolution in this month’s issue. We’re excited about the exposure the ministry will gain – but more importantly, we hope other church (Methodist and otherwise) will join in. Visit our website www.adventrevolution.com for more details on the movement and how it’s impacted our church in such a significant way.

An Eastern Family in a Western World

The Bible is an Eastern book. It has Eastern culture, economics, social stigmas, literary style, etc., at its core. I believe that without this contextual “lens,” the ultimate meaning of the Bible at best is less impacting than in Jesus’ time.

However, some aspects of the Bible’s Eastern flavor seem to find their way into our lives without searching for it. Two of them are 1) the Eastern understanding of family roles and 2) the Oriental emphasis on shame and honor. It’s significant to me that there are technically two types of “shame” in Eastern societies. One is negative and the other is positive. The negative one condemns inappropriate behavior and the positive one helps individuals “save face” when confronted with a difficult situation. For example, with the persistent friend in Luke 11:5-8, Westerners assume that the friend banging on the door late at night has commited a cultural taboo. But actually, it’s the man who refuses to open the door and provide food for a town visitor that would have infuriated Jesus’ listeners. He violated basic Oriental cultural standards of hospitality.

Though these Eastern ideas don’t make it into our Bible interpretation very often (which means we usually miss the intended point), the Christian family can easily adopt these Eastern cultural norms for their own simply by reading the Bible together. My family did. We were different than other families I knew just based on emphasis of lifestyle. Though it certainly had to do with our Christianity, it also stemmed from living like an Eastern family in a Western world. Just by studying scripture, my brother and I absorbed Eastern understandings of right and wrong. We valued time, honor, authority, family rank, and so on without really understanding that the cultural emphasis for these concepts came straight outta scripture (not Compton). When I went out with friends or on a date at age 16, I fully understood that my family’s name and honor were on the line with each decision I made. I understood “losing face” without knowing what to call it. That was a greater deterrent than any punishment that may have followed an infraction. My other friends often saw themselves as individuals apart from their families – doing their own thing. I saw myself as part of a larger picture. Honestly, it made my decisions look weird to my friends.

Sometimes, those same cultural understandings, though appropriate for a family unit with children, become burdensome later in life if parents still enforce them on their adult children. But that doesn’t invalidate their usefulness during the parenting years. In fact, they may be vital to helping a child understand the impact his/her decisions have on others. Some of those “Eastern” family practices are still used with my two daughters now. Others aren’t. But I know this much: families with an Eastern understanding of honor are aware of one another. They respect each other more. And that makes them treat one another better, something all families could use a little more of.

The Best Decision a Methodist Pastor Can Make…

Several weeks ago, I heard about a Methodist pastor who did something radical this past year. Those of us who are not  involved in a plant or an overly contemporary Methodist church work through a number of committees and groups who help foster the growth of our congregations. For the record, I don’t think this is a bad idea. I welcome accountability and input from those I am attempting to serve. At the same time, interaction with these committees can be precarious at best. Ministers must balance progressive ideas with the amount of change they believe a congregation is willing to undertake. Every church has a saturation point. Depending on the circumstances, sometimes that’s not very much. I’m blessed in that our congregation is open to innovative ways of church growth and has done a great job of balancing a vision for the present and future.

Anyway, back to this Methodist pastor. He did something amazing. He put a 35-year-old woman with three children as chairperson of the administrative board at his church. Female. Mid-thirties. Children everywhere. Family-oriented. So, why is this such a big deal? For two reasons, really. First, who is typically in that position in traditional Methodist churches? Male. Mid-forties and fifties. Empty nester. Business-oriented. After all, he can run a business – certainly he can run a church, right? And because of this, many of the programs and mentalities that receive attention by the administrative arm of the church are the ones that meet the needs of that demographic. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course…unless that’s the only ”type” of leader to ever be appointed to that position. This pastor broke rank. He appointed a homemaker. What type of programming do you think receives attention/vision from the chairperson of their administrative board? Children’s ministries. Relationally-oriented programming like small groups. Gender-based accountability groups. Marriage enrichment programs. In other words, the areas most often experiencing atrophy in traditional church environments.

Second, their change of personnel and subsequent programming direction speaks to a truth often lost in contemporary leadership discussions. People, not systems, lead the church. Now, I love systems. I love efficiency and forward-thinking models that anticipate church growth and beat it to the punch.  But in every fast growing, progressive, innovative ministry environment, there is always a charismatic, personable visionary who drives that ministry forward. You can copy Northpoint Community Church…but you need Andy Stanley to do that. Like Mars Hill’s model? Go find a Rob Bell. Like Cornerstone in Simi Valley? You need Francis Chan for that model. All of those churches exist because those leaders were there first. Leadership is not a program or a system - it’s a person. And that’s a common mistake – investing in the system rather than in the leadership utilizing that system. Systems merely complement a well-established vision carried out by someone who is relentless in conveying it. That Methodist pastor changed the game…not when he changed systems…but when he changed leaders. And their church culture is being re-made in the process.

Is this type of change the best decision a Methodist minister can make? Maybe not. But I thought it was nothing short of genius.

Seeing Ministry Through a Child’s Eyes

About five years ago, I got a call from a mother who was in the throes of a battle with her seven year old. The problem? Her son wanted a pair of green and orange shoes for the new school year. Mom was much more interested in buying some respectable (and cheaper) white and navy sneakers – the kind you’d expect to be mother “approved.” So, she called me asking me what I thought she should do. I asked some leading questions: do they provide support for his feet? Are they structurally inferior? They were only ten dollars more expensive (and within budget). Then, I asked her the question that really mattered: why didn’t she like the green and orange shoes?

“Because they are ugly and embarrassing.”

“Ugly and embarrassing for whom?” I asked.

And that’s when the conversation went in another direction. Eventually, this concerned mother saw that her shoe preference had little to do with the happiness or protection of her seven year old son. It had to do with her.

Of course, I thought about the larger context of this conversation in regards to children’s ministry. I wear several hats at my job. One is the minister to families. That includes creating a healthy environment for everyone - from marriage enrichment to casting a vision for children’s ministry. Most often ministers, when making renovations to children’s ministry areas, look at the responses of the adults and volunteers when pitching ideas. In fact, as we were planning for our own recently completely renovations, we visited different churches. And sure enough, we focused on the comments and concerns of the adults. But about halfway through the field trips, I began to completely ignore the parents and staff members. I began to look at the children’s faces – their responses, smiles, singing, and dancing. I also paid attention to their looks of boredom and (for some) downright torture. And those images became my ministry goal for our church renovations.

Months later, as we unveiled our new ministry areas, I stood back and watched the children’s faces as they walked in for the first time. Many smiled. Others were not impressed. So, we added more. More smiles. And after a few more over-the-top items, every child began smiling. That’s when I knew we were heading in the right direction. Do I like everything about the design and curriculum choices? No. They are much more “green and orange” than “white and navy.”  But I’m not the focus. The children are. And they think it’s great. Adults forget this. I see volunteers and staff beam with pride after a children’s production while the younger participants behind them would rather stick a fork in their eye than be there. They are telling us something…but we’re not listening.

Children’s ministry is very important in church life. Happily involved children bring their happily involved parents. But sometimes, ministers forget the most important aspect of children’s ministry: follow the children’s lead. If we are looking and listening, they rarely lead us astray in meeting their spiritual needs.

Aggressively Pursuing a Life of Peace

We have some life mottos around our house that guide our life decisions. Often times, these mottos aren’t always obvious to everyone. They hold a higher value on spiritual things than material things. They place more importance on relational harmony than personal gain. It also keeps us from bowing to the peer pressure that young couples face, like trying to “keep up with the Joneses.”

The first and probably most important motto comes from the verse “Seek peace and pursue it” (Psalm 34:14, 1 Peter 3:11). Romans 12:18 relays a similar idea: “Do all that you can to live at peace with all men.” We call it aggressive peace. Beth and I make decisions around the idea that in every situation, there is a peaceful and overall beneficial decision that keeps balance among our family members. If at all possible, we choose that “peaceful” solution. That’s how we make vacation plans, buy new appliances, choose schools, choose television shows or movies, etc. You get the idea. If there is a choice that leads to unrest, strife, anger, impatience, and irritation, we usually opt for something else.

Now that may sound obvious to you. But there’s a subtle difference. We don’t wait for peaceful decisions to come to us. We make peace happen for our children and for each other. We’re aggressive about pursuing peace. We fight for it. We plan for it. We do whatever it takes to maintain it. A lot of people have financial goals or material goals – and we do as well. But all of that comes from our overall peace goal. What lies behind “peace” for us? Questions like, “Which choice promotes the most security for our children?” “Which choice creates ease of life and rest for our retirement?” “How can we peacefully discipline our children?” And most importantly, “Which choice honors God and draws us to him, not away from him?”

But not only do we not wait for these options for peace to come our way. We take it a step further: we “agressively pursue” them. Beth and I discuss questions like, “What makes for a peaceful marriage?” or “What brings peace to our children?” or “What does financial peace look like?” Then we take agressive measures to implement those details into our lives. For example, with finances, we list a second round of details. Financial peace means ultimately means no financial stress: little debt, no collections calls, solid retirement plans, college saving for children now rather than later, choosing economical and sensible cars and houses, and not living paycheck to paycheck if possible. Then we aggressively make those our goals.

I guess pursuing peace as a lifestyle can only be done by someone who believes they have the ability to make their life what they want. I believe all of us can do that. But it takes a lot of thought and premeditation. And often times our decisions are not the most conventional choice. We’re not experts at this and sometimes lose our focus. And plans can certainly change. But the key is to at least have some plan in place and be willing to adjust it accordingly when life throws a curve ball. Personally, living a life of peace is a way to honor God with what he’s given us – a way to proactively reflect his image in us. Taking the initiative to make life good is not anti-Christian at all. It actually reflects the productive nature of God and his willingness to be involved in every aspect of our life. In the end, life truly is what you make of it. Our goal is to make a life of peace for each other and for our children.

Reconciling Faith and Science: A History Lesson, Part 1

I went to see G.I. Joe two weeks ago. It was absolutely horrible. But one quote in the movie piqued my interest.  A supposedly really smart and highly educated soldier (played by Sienna Miller) said to another soldier “Emotions are not based in science, and if you can’t quantify or prove something exists…well, in my mind it doesn’t.” That quote is a great example of the popular understanding of why faith and science are incompatible to many people. I started this series of posts talking about the “humanness” of science. For some readers, that may have made you uncomfortable. Science should be as absolute as it was for the soldier in that movie. The reason we have this idea is from the historical event called the Enlightenment, a cultural paradigm called Positivism and their modern love child: something called naturalism.

Listen to a quote from Jim Collins’ book Good to Great. Collins describes the Enlightenment in one paragraph: “…the ‘God is the answer to everything’ perspective…held back our scientific understanding of the physical world in the Dark Ages…But with the Enlightenment, we began to search for a more scientific understanding – physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth. Not that we became atheists, but we gained a deeper understanding about how the universe works.”  Everything is so simple and neat isn’t it?  We’re not talking about a science book – it’s a business/management book for crying out loud!  But it’s not at all. What Collins gives us is actually naturalism’s triumphal take on the Enlightenment. God took a backseat once science explained things. Unfortunately, this ”Cliff’s Notes” view of history is the norm for many folks. So, let me unpack this idea for you so you won’t be enslaved by it.

So, how did the Enlightenment happen? Well, it wasn’t an overnight change like it’s often presented. The Enlightenment spans from the 1600s all the way into the 1800s. It was a slow gradual shift in perspective.  For me, the beginning of Enlightment thought started with Rene Descartes. He was a philosopher in the 1600s who came up with a unique way to view the world. Assimilating the discoveries of the Scientific Revolution (Copernicus, Kepler, etc.), he described a perspective in a way that would permeate science, religion, philosophy and politics to this day. The name is Cartesian Dualism: it’s the belief that the world can be artificially divided into two parts – the natural and those things above nature. The physical and the metaphysical. The term “supernatural” didn’t exist until the Enlightenment. Up until then, spiritual answers were acceptable to explain natural phenomena on earth. But Descartes came from the opposite direction. He said that we must approach everything with the assumption that nothing is proven until empirical evidence makes it so.

What’s funny about all of this is that Descartes, a religious person, was actually attempting to “save” God and religion from the onslaught of criticism that began when scientific discoveries began to “prove” the church wrong. Now, there was certainly nothing wrong with challenging the authority of the church…but people began to doubt the importance of religion, too. So, Descartes was attempting to remove God from the natural realm in hopes that critics would leave religion alone since God’s value was beyond empiricism’s grasp. But what this did on a popular level was create an “either/or” approach to our world. Feeling the unncessary need to prioritize different values, the second generation of Enlightenment thinkers pushed God out of the frame completely choosing to value what could be scientifically tested: the natural world order.

Rather than find solace and meaning in religion, something else took precedence in the 1800s: Positivism. Positivism is just a fancy word for choosing to believe that legitimate forms of knowledge are only gained through sense experience. But during that time, Positivism carried other cultural and intellectual connotations. Intellectuals and the general public fully believed that scientific progress was the key to the future. After all, they saw technological inventions and scientific discoveries left and right that confirmed this idea. God was no longer meeting society’s needs; science was. Progress became marked by a culture’s willingness to throw off the chains of religion (often relegated to ”superstition” by Enlightenment thinkers) and embrace the triumphs of science. Everything is supported by natural laws. If humans can learn those laws and utilize them in the lab and in mathematics, we can make a better world for ourselves.

We’ll pick up our history lesson next post…