Christianity, Evolution, and Civil Rights

Oftentimes, I hear people bash Christianity because it is supposedly a patriarchal religion. Christians are painted as women-haters who believe in some outdated 1950s morality. Most of these critics come from the tide of evolutionary postmodernists who also believe that the Bible and Christianity in general are useless. There is a problem here though. For while Christianity is disparaged for their "negative" view of women, evolutionary philosophy deserves a closer look.

Basic evolutionary philosophy teaches a process known as natural selection, or more commonly known as, "survival of the fittest." This "only the strong will survive" mentality permeates evolutionary philosophy. Which begs the question? Why on earth would an evolutionist fight for the rights of women? Or, for that matter, why would they fight for the rights of any down-trodden people? The logical conclusion is that by fighting for civil rights they are simply battling against the interminable wave of natural selection. Evolution will have its way with mankind. In reality, if they really believe what they say, they should do nothing. Why? Because, given the right amount of time, evolution will run its course and eliminate those people anyway. It seems silly to fight this eventual outcome. We should allow everyone to fight for themselves. The strong will live, the weak will be crushed by the machine. And so it goes. My point is that folks coming from an materialistic (evolutionary) philosophy have no basis for promoting civil rights. They lack true motivation. Like I said before, if these people are too weak to stand up for themselves, they should be eliminated, right?

The answer is clearly wrong. The truth is that evolutionary philosophy misses the boat when it comes to the dignity of man. In an evolutionist's view, man is simply another animal with a high level of reasoning capability. Once again, I state the question: Why should we then fight for the right of a weaker animal when, in reality, that weaker animal is robbing me of much needed necessities and slowing the evolutionary process?

The Christian alternative is much more hopeful. Scripture tells of the magnificent dignity with which God has made us. Genesis 1:27 says that we, man and woman, are created in the image of God; therefore, we hold a place of highest value in the eyes of God and in the eyes of one another. So, when we see someone fall, when we hear the oppressed cry out, we are to respond because that person also bears God's image. They too hold a place of supreme value in the eyes of God. Not only that, we know that God so loved the whole world that He sent His Son to die for our sins (paraphrase of John 3:16). If that is true, then each person on this earth has great dignity imparted to them. The Christian, though I will admit we have been woeful, must in every case fight for the rights of our fellow image-bearers. We must love our neighbors as we love ourselves (Matthew 19:19), not because it is the nice thing to do. It is because that other person has been adorned with the image of God.

The reality of the situation is this: evolutionary philosophy robs man of his dignity, though its proponents say that it does the opposite, and the Way of Christ restores it. Civil rights ought to be a ridiculous notion to an evolutionist, but it is not. Why? Because people can't live that way. Man was not made to be animals; we were made to bear the image of God on earth.

Schaeffer on man

"We cannot deal with people like human beings, we cannot deal with them on the high level of true humanity, unless we know their origin -- who they are. God tells man who he is. God tells us that He created man in His image. So man is something wonderful." - Escape from Reason

Augustine on Marriage

I recently read an interesting piece by Saint Augustine. While many have enjoyed his Confessions and The City of God (two literary masterpieces), he wrote on various and sundry other topics. This particular piece I read is entitled "On the Good of Marriage." In it, Augustine is apparently arguing a group of people who had been arguing against marriage. Well, I quickly discovered that Augustine had some very interesting positions with regard to marriage. At first, I found myself disagreeing with him, but after a careful reading of his positions, I think I agree with most of what he says. He makes three important points, which are the keys to his understanding of marriage and in turn of sex. They are as follows:

The purpose of marriage is the begetting of children. He writes:

"If, therefore, even they who are united in marriage only for the purpose of begetting, for which purpose marriage was instituted..."

And, again:

"Marriage itself indeed in all nations is for the same cause of beggeting sons, and of what character so ever these may be afterward, yet was marriage for this purpose instituted, that they may be born in due and honest order."

So, he is arguing that marriage was made for the particular reason of begetting children. He even makes reference to the creation mandate, "Be fruitful and multiply." Additionally, he makes a similar argument about sex in marriage. There is only one legitimate reason for sexual intercourse in marriage, that is making babies. If you are having sex in marriage without the motivation of begetting children, then you are not following God's proscribed order. While sex for other reasons (I guess he means pleasure) is not totally wrong, it is a missing of the mark in some way. It is not aiming at God's best. It is good (for it is no sin in his eyes), but it is not best (on a side note, this seems odd coming from Augustine since I think he would say that anything not focused on and aiming for God's best, no matter how good it is, is in some form sin).

He writes:

"For sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage, not to exact this, but to yield it to the partner, lest by fornication the other sin damnably."

Hold up, JENNA!!!! He just said that sex for pleasure is not good. Seems a tad problematic when the Bible has a book all about that, Sing of Solomon.

Ok, so far, we have two things that I strongly disagree with. This is where he saves himself. He ends with stating that marriage can build faith. Unfortunately, he doesn't go far enough. He simply says that husbands and wives need to be faithful to one another.

He writes:

"All these are goods, on account of which marriage is good: offspring, faith, sacrament."

He fails to make the connecion that marriage, by teaching us to be faithful to one another, it can teach us how to be faithful to God.

Anyway, just wanted to share with you this intriguing piece and see what you think about it.

Borrowing again...

I saw this and really, really liked it. As an avid reader, I was both convicted and comforted by Dr. Mohler's poignant words about books. In this article, he talks about how the books we read say alot about the type of person we are.

Jay Parini, a poet and professor of English at Middlebury College, has written an elegant essay for The Chronicle of Higher Education, noting his penchant for looking at personal libraries of friends and acquaintances.

In "Other People's Books,' Parini writes:

It's not only the physical aspects of books that attract me, of course. In fact, I rarely buy first or elegant editions, however much I like to glance at them; good reading copies, in hardback or a decent paperback, are just fine. But seeing some of the editions in my living room reminds me of that wonderful house in Surrey, which stirred my imagination as a young man and was part of the reason I became a writer myself.

What interests me about other people's books is the nature of their collection. A personal library is an X-ray of the owner's soul. It offers keys to a particular temperament, an intellectual disposition, a way of being in the world. Even how the books are arranged on the shelves deserves notice, even reflection. There is probably no such thing as complete chaos in such arrangements.

Parini, author of biographies on William Faulkner and John Steinbeck, writes of visiting libraries in the homes of authors such as Graham Greene and Anthony Powell. Of Powell's library, he writes:

He lived deep in the English countryside, in Somerset, in an old stone manor on many green acres. We had tea in his sitting room, which had floor-to-ceiling shelves on every wall. There were first editions by his good friend Evelyn Waugh, and countless volumes culled from his decades as a reviewer. "I can't give a book up, if it's a book that meant something to me," he said. "I always imagine I'll go back to it one day. I rarely do, but the intention is there, and I get a warm feeling among my books." I wished I could have spent days wandering in that house, as he had books in nearly every room.

Book lovers know exactly what Powell meant. We do get a warm feeling among our books. Furthermore, true bibliophiles understand the problem in the Powell house -- the books spread themselves to every room.

Finally, he notes:

Other people's books draw my attention, of course. They excite curiosity about their owners and the worlds they inhabit. But it's finally my own books that matter, as they tell me about where I've been, and where I hope to go.

When truly read, a book becomes a part of us. That is why we are afraid to part with even the physicality of it. The book becomes an aid to memory and a deposit of thought and reflection. Its very materiality testifies that we once held it in our hands as we passed the pages before our eyes.

Parini observes that libraries are mirrors into our minds and souls. The books we collect, display, and read tell the story about us.

This may be especially true of Christian ministers. Books are a staple of our lives and ministries. When the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy to bring the books and the parchments, he was writing with the kind of urgency any preacher understands.

To a great extent, our personal libraries betray our true identities and interests. A minister's library, taken as a whole, will likely reveal a portrait of theological conviction and vision. Whose works have front place on the shelves, Martyn Lloyd-Jones or John Shelby Spong? Charles Spurgeon or Harry Emerson Fosdick? Karl Barth or Carl Henry? John MacArthur or Joel Osteen?

How serious a Bible scholar is this preacher? The books will likely tell. Are the books all old or all new? If so, the reader is probably too contemporary or too antiquarian in focus. Are the books read? If so, the marginalia of an eager and intelligent mind adds value to the book. It becomes more a part of us.

Is this person a Christian intellectual, feeding the mind and soul by reading? For too many pastors, the personal library announces, "I stopped reading when I graduated from seminary."
When I think of my closest friends, I realize that I am most at home with them in their libraries, and they are most at home with me in mine. Why? Because the books invite and represent the kind of conversation and sharing of heart, soul, and mind that drew us together in the first place.
By their books we shall know them. And by our books we shall be known.

I finally blogged....

"The world seems to me like a decayed house, David and the prophets being the spars, and Christ the main pillar in the midst, that supports all." - Martin Luther

And I borrowed it from someone else...I'm such a slacker...