This splendid article by Peter Wood in The Chronicle of Higher Education states some hard truths and asks some hard questions about assumptions concerning religion that reign in academia today. How come Christian Fundamentalists are openly discriminated against in educational hiring, while scholars promoting the more ridiculous claims of feminists about a supposed prehistoric matriarchal “golden age” are routinely welcomed and promoted?

There is no real evidence that humanity every passed through a stage in which society was matriarchal, and abundant evidence to the contrary. Goddesses, of course, appear frequently in the world’s religions and myths, but the notion of a great prehistoric cult of the Goddess in Europe connected to matriarchal rule has no foundation.

Why bring this up now? Because higher education’s relaxed attitude about appointing faculty members who not only believe but who actually teach this moonshine demonstrates the hypocrisy of those who say that faculty members are acting out of the need to protect the university from anti-scientific nonsense when they discriminate against conservative Christian candidates for academic appointment. The possibility that a candidate for a position in biology, anthropology, or, say, English literature might secretly harbor the idea that God created the universe or that the Bible is true, is a danger not to be brooked. But apparently, the possibility that a candidate believes that human society was “matriarchal” until about 5,000 years ago is perfectly within the range of respectable opinion appropriate for campus life.

Splendid stuff. A long article, but definitely worth reading. Tip: Cronaca.

A randomly selected reader asks the following question:

Lars, given the sea-faring nature of the Vikings, what do you think (perhaps what did they think) of the words in Revelation about the new heaven and earth.  “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.” Perhaps they never heard a sermon on that verse and didn’t have the Bible in their language to read themselves. So, what do you think?

 

Phil Wade

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your question. It is always good for young people to seek wisdom from their elders.

The passage to which you refer is Revelation 21:1. What did Viking converts think of this? I don’t think it’s a matter that came up much, and I know of no discussion of the matter in the sagas.

My first thought is that the Vikings might not have cared as much about this issue as we might expect. I’ve always loved the sea, but it was the idea of the sea I loved. I grew up hundreds of miles from the nearest shore, and the sea was a romantic image to me. For those who live close to it and deal with it every day, it’s not (I suspect) the same thing. Just as the American prairie has never held much magic for me.

My great-grandfather, I know, grew up working in the Norwegian herring and cod fishery, and once he was able to get a landlocked farm in Minnesota, he never looked back. He couldn’t see why anybody would want to go fishing, ever.

I might add that my own interpretation of that particular passage is not literal.

One thing I’ve learned in my Bible study is that the biblical Jews viewed the sea as almost entirely an evil thing. They identified it with the premordial abyss of Genesis 1:2: “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep…” The sea was the treacherous place where there was nowhere to stand, where a man was swallowed up and lost forever.

This, by the way, is important to remember when reading the New Testament stories about Jesus calming the storm and walking on water, etc. He was asserting His authority over hell itself, in the disciples’ eyes, when He did those things. It also explains the plea of the demons of the Gerasenes not to be cast into the abyss, when they in fact end up in the Sea of Galilee (Luke 8:31-33).

That’s why I read Revelation 21:1 symbolically (that’s hardly a liberal reading, as so much of Revelation is clearly symbolic). I think the passage means that the wanton chaos of our moral world will be gone forever. Life will be fair at last.

But if I’m wrong, I’m sure I’ll learn to live with it.

“Those who operate without a proper call seek no good purpose. God does not bless their labors. They may be good preachers, but they do [not] edify. Many of the fanatics of our day pronounce words of faith, but they bear no good fruit, because their purpose is to turn men to their perverse opinions.” – Martin Luther

More on Aaron Armstrong’s blog

Mike D’Virgilio talks about the first season of “Spartacus” and what the world would be like if Christianity had never existed. As we’ve touched on many times on this blog, one thing that would been different is the idea of forgiveness. Forgive others as Christ has forgiven you? Crazy. I wonder if Islam, which spun off of Muhammad’s exposure to Christianity, would have come about either. Even Buddhism and parts of Hinduism have changed in response to the teachings of Christ Jesus. The Way, the Truth, and the Life has really turned people upside down over the years.

Last night, my children were thinking about what they would give up for the next few weeks, and I tried to guide them. First, they were not instruct each other on what to give up. Second, Lent isn’t essentially about giving up stuff.

If we deny ourselves during the weeks leading up to Easter, we do so in order to promote our devotion to our heavenly Father. If we give up using Facebook, drinking colas, eating desserts, watching movies or reading novels, we want to do it so that we put ourselves in a place where we remember our Lord more than we did before. Perhaps when Easter comes, we will have taken an axe to one of our idols because we rejected something during Lent and will have a quieter spirit, a more submissive heart, for our daily routine. We will have tried to let go of trivial supports and leaned more on the Lord.

But maybe giving something up isn’t what we should do over the next few weeks. I mean, maybe it isn’t all we should do, because our intent is to wean ourselves off of worldly things and love Christ Jesus more, see God the Father working around us more, and know the Holy Spirit within us more than we did before. So maybe we should plan to study the Bible or memorize parts of it or learn to pray using the Psalms. Maybe we should find someone willing to meet us weekly for a discipleship study or a few people to help us serve our church and community.

“To suppose that whatever God requireth of us, that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect.” – John Owen (quoted by the Spirit-filled Puritan)

That’s the point of denying ourselves during Lent. We want to forget our own power (or the illusion of it) and rely on Christ Jesus, our Savior and King.

I’m not qualified to judge the legal merits of the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter of Albert Snyder vs. Westboro Baptist Church today, but that won’t stop me from expressing my moral horror at what seems to me a deeply perverse and dangerous ruling.

World Magazine reports:

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, concluding that under the First Amendment, even despicable speech is protected if it concerns a public matter. “A group of parishioners standing at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said ‘God Bless America’ and ‘God Loves You,’ would not have been subjected to liability,” he wrote. “It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages.” But Roberts acknowledged that the speech itself was odious: “Westboro believes America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro.”

The opinion noted that the case was decided based on the specific circumstances of Matthew  Snyder’s funeral, and shouldn’t be construed as a broad ruling. Westboro protestors stood on a public sidewalk more than 1,000 feet from the funeral, complying with local laws. Albert  Snyder reportedly only saw the tops of the signs at the funeral, and didn’t see what they said until afterward, meaning he wasn’t a “captive audience,” Roberts wrote, a condition for the court to restrict speech.

As a non-lawyer, what I see here is a symptom of a larger problem in American life. There seems to be a greater concern with satisfying “jot and tittle” legal points, than with doing justice. Jesus said, “You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.” (Matthew 23:23)

In order for society to work, the people need to believe, a) that the laws are for their protection, and b) that the people who administer the law are morally sane.

It seems to me this decision calls both principles into question.

I could find a bright side in this decision, if I wanted to. I could say, “Well, if the detestable expressions of Westboro Baptist Church are legally protected, my own politically incorrect speech is probably pretty safe.”

But I cannot feel that way.

I will not feel that way.

In any case, the protection of an insane legal system is not be relied on.

I wrote about “zero tolerance” rules a few days ago, how authorities are more and more enforcing rules without thought or sympathy, regardless of the harm it may do.

This decision looks to me like an instance of the same thing. They upheld the letter of the statute. They missed (I would contend) its purpose entirely.

Our judicial system, to all appearances, has utterly abandoned its mandate (which I consider a divine mandate) to restrain evil. It’s possible to nurture discussion and debate about the most radical and controversial issues, while still preventing people from purposely causing children to cry.

One of my favorite moments of drama in Scripture comes from the story of David. The prophet Nathan comes to the king, to confront him over his sins of adultery and murder. He engages the king’s emotions by telling a story about a rich man who, instead of killing one of the sheep out of his own vast flocks to feed a guest, steals a poor man’s only sheep, a family pet.

David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man!” (2 Samuel 12:5-7)

The members of Westboro Baptist Church have no pity. More and more in our culture, I fear, we are at the mercy of people who have no pity.