Randal Rauser's Blog, page 62

Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Or Legend, or …

This morning, my pastor mentioned C.S. Lewis’ famous “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” trilemma. (He also briefly traced it back to the sixteenth century: there truly is nothing new under the sun.) Next, he briefly noted that there is a fourth possibility — “Legend” — though he also noted that there is ample evidence to rebut that claim (and I agree with him on that).

But he didn’t note a fifth possibility. And yet, if we are to be comprehensive, we should admit that there is a fifth possibility: being mistaken. Granted, the belief that one is the Son of God is a common trope to exemplify mental illness, but it is wholly conceivable that a rational person could, through a series of events, come to the rational and yet mistaken conclusion that he is the unique Son of God.

To be sure, I don’t think that is at all plausible in the case of Jesus. But for the sake of comprehensiveness, we should note it as a possibility, even if it throws off our tidy alliteration.

The post Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Or Legend, or … appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Should you be able to say when you wouldn’t be a Christian in order to be a Christian?

This morning, I posted the following as a tweet:

Atheists often challenge me by asking the conditions under which I would reject the Bible as God’s Word, or say that God isn’t perfectly good or conclude that Christianity isn’t true. The assumption is that if I don’t provide those conditions, the faith I now have is somehow illegitimate. But that’s like telling a newlywed that their marriage is only legitimate if they give the conditions under which they’d seek a divorce.

Meh, it don’t work like that.

In other words, it is absurd to insist that one must provide falsification thresholds for one’s belief and existential commitment in order for that belief and commitment to be genuine or legitimate.

Within a couple of minutes, I received the two most predictable replies, one from an atheist and the second from a Christian. By the way, I don’t mean “predictable” in a disparaging way. Rather, these are the two responses that are most readily suggested by my original statement.

Atheist Comment

The atheist asked: “I know exactly what would trigger divorce in my marriage don’t you ?”

I replied: “If it turned out that my wife was a psychopath and she tried to kill me and my child, then sure, I’d divorce her. That’s not the question. The question is whether the legitimacy of a marriage depends on stating a threshold for divorce. That’s absurd.” (emphasis added)

In other words, it is easy to identify extreme cases where one would surrender their belief and existential commitment. If I died and appeared before the throne of Allah, I’d say, “Well gee, I was wrong!” It isn’t hard to come up with such scenarios. The key is that it is absurd to demand that one must be able to identify precisely that straw that breaks the camel’s proverbial back, i.e. that moment at which one would conclude that their belief was false. With complex beliefs and deep existential commitments, it is very difficult if not impossible to identify precisely that moment: you don’t know it until you live it. Consequently, it is absurd to demand it.

Theist Comment

The theist commented: “I think the Bible offers its own conditions of falsifiability, such as if the universe were infinite, or if the resurrection were demonstrated to be false. I am surprised they don’t consider those points.”

I replied: “You should read my chapter on Christians who question the resurrection in my book “You’re not as Crazy as I Think.” It’s more complicated than to cite 1 Cor. 15:14. But the point is that the genuineness of the faith doesn’t depend on identifying falsification thresholds.”

To conclude, I listed three points for which the atheist commonly demands falsification thresholds: belief in the Bible as God’s Word, belief that God is perfectly good, and belief that Christianity is true. The legitimacy of my belief in and existential commitment to the Bible, the goodness of God, and the truth of Christianity is simply not contingent upon my ability to say the precise conditions under which I would find myself surrendering those beliefs and that commitment.

The post Should you be able to say when you wouldn’t be a Christian in order to be a Christian? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Atheists on the Bible

Here’s one big problem that atheists have with the Bible: they assume the Bible functions as a set of instructions for how to go to heaven. And then they predictably criticize the Bible because, well, it isn’t that.

But don’t blame the atheists: they get that idea from many Christians.

Here’s another problem: atheists expect the Bible should exhibit hallmarks that it is the product of divine discourse, hallmarks that cannot be denied by any rational person. But the Bible doesn’t have those hallmarks. So the atheists proceed to toss the Bible.

Once again, don’t blame the atheists: they also get that idea from many Christians.

The post Atheists on the Bible appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Is Love Just a Chemical Reaction? My Valentine’s Day Soliloquy

I just read an incredibly dumb headline on my @CNN app: “What we call love is actually a chemical process in our brains.” (And on Valentine’s Day, no less! Is nothing sacred?) Needless to say, this is a ridiculous example of reductionism. Love is most surely not the same thing as a chemical reaction in our brains.

Ironically, however, when I clicked the article I then read this headline: “Are you in love or just high on chemicals in your brain? Answer: Yes.” Ahh, so it would seem the original title was, in fact, a bit of trollish click-bait. When you get into the actual article it sensibly sets aside the nonsense reductionism that love just is a chemical reaction. Instead, it retreats to the far more credible assertion that love is an experience that is realized through and concurrently with said chemical reactions.

Fair enough. However, there is still another problem that we need to address here, namely the assumption that love is the same thing as that period of infatuation that kicks off many meaningful and loving relationships. Contrary to what CNN (and countless twitterpated teenagers and bedazzled balladeers) assume, love isn’t that fleeting “Romeo and Juliet” obsession. If CNN really wants to talk about love, they might try examining a different set of chemical reactions.

Okay then, so what is love? I think the Apostle Paul can handle that one:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

The post Is Love Just a Chemical Reaction? My Valentine’s Day Soliloquy appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Problems with the Bible that Aren’t Problems at All

The other day, I posted the following tweet:

Atheists who dismiss the Bible as “iron age fables” should invest a month studying a single book of the Bible by reading a range of biblical commentaries, monographs, and articles on that book. They will come to appreciate that much more is going on than they realized, guaranteed

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 12, 2020

My tweet predictably elicited many responses from atheists who said that they had studied the Bible extensively and had concluded that it isn’t inspired. That, however, missed my modest point. All I said was that those who dismiss it as “iron age fables” (a mere bit of dismissive rhetoric) will recognize that “much more is going on than they realized”. That’s all.

Another predictable reply was an incredulous question/objection that the text lacks the kind of clarity and precision that we would expect of a communication from God. For example,

Nothing says divinely inspired like a need for 1800 years of esoteric reinterpretation and apologia.

— The Oranges of Species (@CapalTunnel) February 13, 2020

Let’s put it another way: this question and comment express skepticism of divine inspiration of the Bible based on the fact that it has spawned a fascinating, enduring conversation among great minds.

But why is that a problem? On the contrary, I’d expect God’s Words to do precisely that. If the great works of the most brilliant human authors spawn labyrinth and endlessly stimulating dialogues and debates, why would we expect any less from God’s Words?

Indeed, the word “Israel” means to struggle with God. And that’s just what the Bible invites us to do.

The post Problems with the Bible that Aren’t Problems at All appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Enneagram: A window into the soul or a waste of time?

If you have spent any time in evangelical circles over the last few years, you have likely heard about the “enneagram”. While this personality test has been around for several decades, of late it has grown in popularity among evangelicals through the work of several popular Christian leaders like Richard Rohr and Elizabeth Wagele. But is the enneagram a useful tool? Is it worth the time, effort, and money? Will it yield unique insights into your personality? Is it a useful tool for churches, seminaries, and parachurch ministries?

To answer these questions, we need somebody who knows what they’re talking about. And in this case, that someone is Jay Medenwaldt, also known as the Psych Apologist. Jay is currently a Ph.D. student at Baylor University in the area of social psychology. He also has an M.Div. in apologetics, ethics, and biblical studies and an M.A. in psychological sciences. And he is the Director of Apologetics Awareness. Previously, Jay worked in the Air Force for nine years as a behavioral scientist. In other words, he knows what he’s talking about. You can visit Jay online at his website.

And now, without further ado, here are Jay’s well-considered thoughts on the enneagram and whether it is a useful tool for delving into your personality.

If you’re having a severe allergic reaction and a doctor is about to give you a shot of epinephrine to save your life, would you stop to ask who invented this medication, how it was invented, and what its spiritual history is? Probably not. All you would care about is whether it works. Sadly, many people reject the enneagram because of its history and origins when our only concern should be whether it works.

One of my favorite Bible verses says to test everything and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and I try to do this as much as possible in my life. The enneagram doesn’t get a free pass. It should be tested just like everything else. If it works, we should use and promote it. If it doesn’t work, we should avoid it and encourage others to do the same.

Since the enneagram makes claims about the way the world is, it can and should be tested scientifically, even if people claim it can’t be. Let’s take a look at some of the scientific data on the enneagram to see if it’s as great as people claim.

Scientific Data

When any new psychological scale is developed, it must be validated for accuracy. The most basic measure used is called internal reliability, which is measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Basically, this tests to see how much error there is for each type. A value of .70 has 30% error and is typically considered acceptable, .80 has 20% error and is good, and .90 has 10% and is excellent.

The few articles that reported these scores had values ranging from .37 to .83 (Newgent et al., 2004; Yilmaz et al., 2014; Wagner & Walker, 1983). For comparison, the NEO PI-R (often referred to as the Big Five) is the most common in scientific research and its scores range from .86 to .92 (McCrae & Costa, 1987). What this means for the enneagram is that the types have a large amount of error and heavily overlap with one another.

Another test is inter-rater reliability which looks to see if two people rate a person the same way. This is relevant for all the people who try to type others. For the enneagram, the highest score for this came from people with at least 2.5 years experience with the enneagram and they only agreed 55% of the time. The scores only went down from there in other studies or when less experienced people were tested. In fact, one researcher who advocates for the enneagram states that trained enneagram practitioners are pretty good (although the data doesn’t support this), but they are “not as good as they think they are!” (Sutton et al., 2012). 

In other words, when you type another person without their input, you’re probably wrong half the time, if not more. I know everyone thinks they do better than the study reports, but that’s extremely unlikely. Personally, I’ve been typed as a 1, 5, and 8 by different people (and as a 7 by one scale) and all of them were extremely confident they were right while insisting the others were wrong. If you’re curious, I think a 5 best describes me, but 1 is a close second and I score pretty high on several other types too.

For anyone who knows basic psychometrics, it’s clear and obvious that the enneagram is not accurate. This is probably why it’s used and promoted almost exclusively by people without a psychology degree. If you’re interested in a more detailed analysis of the scientific data, you can read the article on my website here.

At this point you might be wondering, why does it seem to work so well if it’s not accurate? Let’s explore some of the reasons for apparent disagreement between science and personal experience.

Scientific Explanations

When I teach apologetics lessons, I often open with a series of mind tricks and illusions. I do this because it’s fun and because it shows people how easily we are tricked when we don’t think carefully.

One of my examples is to ask how long it takes for sugar to make kids hyperactive. Almost nobody gets the answer right. It’s a trick question because numerous double-blind studies have shown that sugar doesn’t make kids hyperactive (Milich et al., 1986 is a review of several studies). Instead, parents rate their child’s behavior as more hyperactive when they think the kids have had sugar. Moreover, kids usually get excited about eating high-sugar foods or they’re in environments that already induce hyperness (e.g. a birthday party). If we think about it biologically, it becomes obvious that sugar doesn’t cause hyperactivity because all carbs are turned into sugars in the digestion process.

How does this relate to the enneagram? There are several psychological explanations for this, but I will only focus on a few of them in this article. Here’s another article I wrote in greater detail.

Perhaps the primary factor in this enneagram craze is what’s known as the Forer effect (also referred to as the Barnum effect). This scientifically documented effect is the tendency for people to think that broad statements about people, in general, are highly accurate personal statements. After all, general statements apply to most people so they should describe us; however, these statements don’t tell us how we’re different from others. This aligns with the scientific data discussed above which show that the enneagram types are very broad and overlapping categories.

Adding to the appearance of accuracy is the false-consensus effect. This is the tendency to think a group has greater consensus on a topic than it really does. When a group of people are together and start talking about the enneagram, the people automatically assume it works for everyone unless someone specifically says it didn’t work for them. The skeptics usually don’t say anything because they don’t want to cause division, be ostracized, or look foolish for not fitting in. Since I started writing about the enneagram, numerous people have told me this has been their experience.

Finally, I will say that the enneagram does describe some people very well, but this is just by mere coincidence. If you created a list of personality attributes and randomly divided them into categories, there will be a lot of people who just happen to fit into a single category. On the other hand, there will also be people who don’t fit into any category. The problem is that the enneagram is supposed to reveal your hidden self, which means that if it doesn’t describe you, you can’t know if this is because it’s a bad test or because you’re not being honest with yourself.

Conclusion

Why does all this matter? Who cares if the enneagram is a bit off for some people? The reason this matters is because it’s causing people harm. I’ve heard stories of people being unfairly treated due to their type through work or social discrimination, experiencing emotional turmoil, and ending significant relationships. I even heard a story of a woman questioning her marriage because of the enneagram, although I don’t know what came of it.

If you want to learn more about your personality, I recommend using the Big Five. Here’s a link to a short, medium, and long version depending on the level of analysis you’re looking for. Instead of getting together with friends or your church to discuss your enneagram type, do the Big Five. You can discuss each trait, or sub-trait, and discuss how it might benefit you and cause you difficulty. If you score extremely high or low on any trait, discuss whether this is healthy for you and work to change it if it’s not.

If you have any questions, I’m happy to talk about them. You can contact me through just about any social media platform. Thank you for reading.

– Jay Medenwaldt, The Psych Apologist

Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Website

Works Cited

Here’s a list of scientific(ish) sources I consulted if you’re interested in going deeper.

Bland, A. M. (2010). The Enneagram: A review of the empirical and transformational literature. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 49(1), 16-31

Edwards, A. C. (1991). Clipping the wings off the enneagram; a study in people’s perceptions of a ninefold personality typology. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 19(1), 11-20.

Matise, M. (2007). The enneagram: An innovative approach. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 35(1).

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 81.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five?factor model and its applications. Journal of personality, 60(2), 175-215.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist, 52(5), 509.

McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and social psychology review, 15(1), 28-50.

Milich, R., Wolraich, M., & Lindgren, S. (1986). Sugar and hyperactivity: A critical review of empirical findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 6(6), 493-513.

Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. E., & Newman, I. (2002). The Enneagram: Trends in Validation.

Newgent, R. A., Parr, P. H., Newman, I., & Wiggins, K. K. (2004). The Riso-Hudson Enneagram type indicator: Estimates of reliability and validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36(4), 226-237.

Scott, S. A. (2011). An analysis of the validity of the enneagram. The College of William and Mary.

Sutton, A. M. (2012). But Is It Real? A Review of Research on Enneagram. Enneagram Journal, 5.

Sutton, A., Allinson, C., & Williams, H. (2013). Personality type and work-related outcomes: An exploratory application of the Enneagram model. European Management Journal, 31(3), 234-249.

Wagner, J. P., & Walker, R. E. (1983). Reliability and validity study of a Sufi personality typology: The enneagram. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(5), 712-717.

Yilmaz, E. D., Gençer, A. G., Ünal, Ö., & Aydemir, Ö. (2014). From enneagram to nine types temperament model: A proposal. Egitim ve Bilim, 39(173).

Yilmaz, E. D., Gençer, A. G., Aydemir, Ö., Yilmaz, A., Kesebir, S., Ünal, Ö., … & Bilici, M. (2014). Validity and Reliability and of Nine Types Temperament Scale. Egitim ve Bilim, 39(171).

The post The Enneagram: A window into the soul or a waste of time? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Is Michael Brown a Bigoted Homophobe? You Decide.

Michael Brown has responded to my subtly-titled article “If Hypocrisy were an Olympic Sport, Evangelicals would get the Gold” in which I argue that his support for Donald Trump coupled with his moral censure of Pete Buttigieg exhibits hypocrisy and provides evidence that he is bigoted and homophobic.

Brown begins by quoting his tweet that started it all:

“Choosing an out and proud ‘married’ gay man to run for president, let alone become president, would contribute to the further degeneration and moral confusion of our society along with further attacks on our most fundamental rights.”

He then reflects,

“When I tweeted this statement out on February 8, it received far more retweets and likes than my average tweet. Far more. So, it obviously struck a chord.”

Yes, it did. But surely, Brown cannot be surprised about this: after all, nothing riles evangelicals like gays and gay marriage. As Jeff Lowder said on Twitter, “If only [evangelicals] thought gay sex caused global warming, then they might care about global warming.”

But of course, with the praise of conservative Trump-supporting evangelicals also comes the criticism of many others. As Brown puts it,

“What else could I expect? The moment you say a word about Mayor Pete being ‘married’ to another man, all while flaunting his deep Christian faith, you will be called a homophobic bigot.”

That may apply to the other critic that Brown responds to in the article. But it is important to understand that I am not criticizing Brown’s critique of Pete Buttigieg simpliciter but rather his censure of Buttigieg while supporting Trump. The issue is moral consistency.

Brown continues,

“So be it. I’ve been called worse things than that.

“Come to think of it, Jesus Himself, our perfect Savior, was called far worse things.

“And He told us to expect the same: ‘It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul [basically, the devil himself], how much more the members of his household!'”

Let’s pause for an important point: just because you get criticized as a Christian, doesn’t mean that criticism is unjustified. After all, there’s only one Jesus and you ain’t him.

Brown continues,

According to Prof. Randall Rauser, however, to call me a homophobic bigot is not out of line. (Prof. Rauser is a moderate Canadian evangelical and a constant basher of President Trump.) As he wrote in his blog, “Behavior and reasoning like this provide very plausible evidence that Christians like Brown have an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people.”

Let’s consider Brown’s framing of the issue. He cites Jesus as saying that since he was called “Beelzebul”, his faithful disciples can expect to be called terrible things too. Ergo, if Brown is being called terrible things, then that criticism is because he’s being a faithful disciple. (And by the same token, if a nominal Christian is providing that criticism, they do so because they’re being an unfaithful disciple.)

But of course, that doesn’t follow at all. While it is true that followers of Jesus will face unjust criticism, many followers of Jesus also face justified criticism. And while it is true that some criticism of fellow disciples will be unjustified, that criticism may also be well justified as I believe that mine is.

This is the time where Brown should really consider some of Jesus’ other words on religious hypocrisy, as when he called hypocritical religious leaders whitewashed tombs, blind guides, vipers, and even children of the devil. By contrast to those sharp words, Brown quotes me as saying “Behavior and reasoning like this provide very plausible evidence that Christians like Brown have an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people.” Compared to Jesus’ fiery indictments, I come across as, in Brown’s words, a “moderate Canadian evangelical.”

Interestingly, while Brown takes issue with my criticism of him (a fellow Christian), he then accuses me, a fellow Christian, of being a liar:

“To say, I ‘fall over [myself] to excuse Trump’s grotesque immorality’ is to speak a lie.”

(A liar is one who speaks a lie. If a speak a lie, it follows that I am a liar.)

But let’s be clear on what a lie is: to lie, one must believe that-p and communicate to others that not-p with the intention that they come to believe that not-p. Thus, for me to be lying here, I must first believe that it is false that Brown falls over himself to excuse Trump’s gross immorality. But I don’t believe that is false. I believe it is true. So by definition, I am not lying. It’s a false charge.

Thus, we see that Brown has falsely accused me, a fellow disciple, of lying. If I may borrow some lines from Brown, “so be it. I’ve been called worse things than that. Come to think of it, Jesus Himself, our perfect Savior, was called far worse things.”

But if I am not a liar, what about Brown? Is he a hypocrite for simultaneously supporting Trump despite Trump’s moral cancer on the body politic even as he impugns Buttigieg and all who would support him? Or not?

Brown says no and he provides two reasons for this, two reasons to treat Trump differently than Buttigieg. First, he claims that Trump is repentant for his sin while Buttigieg is not; second, Buttigieg is on the vanguard of a homosexual agenda to transform society. I’m not going to bother the claim about a homosexual agenda here. But I will ask you to consider whether you think that Buttigieg’s role in removing the stigma from gay people and gay relationships is more troubling than Trump’s assault on the rule of law (more on that below).

Now let’s turn to consider the first charge. Brown says that Trump is truly repentant for his bad behavior. What evidence is there for this? Curiously, Brown places all his evidence of Trump being a changed man who has truly repented on his response to the Access Hollywood tape. He writes:

“President Trump is not flaunting his past immorality, nor is he pushing it presently. Instead, when the ugly tape of his lewd comments went public, he said, ‘I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize . . . . I pledge to be a better man tomorrow and will never, ever let you down.'”

I have several points by way of reply. First, I do not believe that Trump’s video presents a genuine, truly repentant apology for his hot mic monologue in which he brags about forcibly grabbing women’s crotches. Why?

To begin with, it has been observed that communication is more than 90% body language. I would ask you to watch the video with the sound off. Does it look like a man repentant, contrite, sorrowful? On the contrary, his brow is furrowed throughout, exhibiting consternation, aggression, not contrition. He speaks with an imposing lear, he leans forward, his shoulder movements suggesting his hands are moving together in that Trumpian triangle rather than leaning back in openness and vulnerability.
When you turn the sound on, Trump speaks with a firm, angry tone. And even worse, before his “apology” is through he makes a point of saying that Bill Clinton is worse. A genuine apology is not one that deflects to the bad actions of a third party.
Trump also claimed that his bragging of sexual assault was “locker room banter” as if it is somehow normal for sixty-year-old men to brag about sexually assaulting women. (It isn’t.) This is not taking ownership of one’s actions and abjectly apologizing for them. Quite the opposite.

To conclude, to believe that Trump genuinely apologized for the Access Hollywood recording, one must be incredibly naive, self-deceived, or both. Suffice it to say, there is precisely zero plausibility to Brown’s outrageous claim.

But it gets worse. The Access Hollywood recording is but one instance in an ongoing saga of Trump’s grotesque sexual behavior. Time does not permit a comprehensive account here including Trump’s appearance in a softcore porn film or his obscene banter with shock jock Howard Stern or his sexualization of his own daughters. Instead, we’ll focus on a few particular low-lights in his catalogue of unrepentant depravity.

To begin with, Brown neglects to mention that Trump paid off porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougall, two women he had sex with while his third wife was home with their newborn child. Trump paid off these two women during the election through his lawyer Michael Cohen, thereby committing a felony. He then lied about this to reporters on Airforce One. The signed checks were later produced by Michael Cohen. (Cohen is now serving a prison term for his part in this crime. Trump has not been indicted due to the DoJ’s policy of not indicting a sitting president.)

One of Trump’s checks paid to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen as reported in the New York Times.

So where is Trump’s repentance for committing adultery on his third wife (or, for that matter, on his second wife? Or his first wife)? And where is his apology video for committing a felony during the election by covering up the liaisons with covert payoffs?

And that’s just the tip of a rotting iceberg. Trump is also accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault by more than twenty other women. He claimed during the election that he would sue these women after the election. But he never did. Why? No doubt, because he would then be required to give testimony under oath in order to rebut charges that he did precisely what he bragged about on the Access Hollywood tape.

At the same time, several of those women are currently suing him. See, for example, the ongoing Summer Zervos lawsuit against Trump. Zervos desperately wants to go to trial in her suit against Trump for defamation. Trump, by contrast, is doing everything to prevent this. Does that sound like an innocent (or at least repentant) man?

Next, why does Brown’s defense of Trump consist solely of one issue relating to sexual ethics? Talk about tunnel vision! What about his continual and repeated vulgarity? For example, last week, he said “bullshit” in a public address. Then he proudly tweeted a video with multiple uses of the f-word. Does this sound like a man behaving in a manner befitting of the presidency?

Even more troubling, what about Trump’s ongoing attempt to subvert the rule of law? Leading Republican senators like Susan Collins admitted that the House established that Trump solicited a foreign power to intervene in a domestic election but inexplicably, she claimed this act was insufficient to remove him from the presidency. However, she hopefully claimed that he had learned his lesson.

What abhorrent self-delusion: Since Collins made that inane, self-deluded wish, Trump has since redoubled his efforts to subvert the rule of law, most recently by retaliating against trial witnesses (Sondland, Vindman, and even Vindman’s twin brother). This is mob behavior and that alone is grounds for further impeachment. In addition, in the last two days, he intervened in the actions of the Department of Justice regarding the case of Roger Stone leading to four prosecutors on the case resigning in protest. Even worse, he has since also threatened a sitting judge on Twitter

These are the actions of a would-be dictator. And Brown wants to talk about the Access Hollywood tape? If ever there were a case of straining gnats and swallowing camels, this is it.

And yet, despite all of Trump’s moral garbage, his sexual deviance, his vulgar, uncouth and lawless behavior, Brown is more incensed that, as he says, Mr. Buttigieg “has kissed his partner at public rallies.”

I conclude with a simple question: if that double-standard is not evidence of bigotry and homophobia, then what is?

The post Is Michael Brown a Bigoted Homophobe? You Decide. appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Catholic Communion Table is Closed to Protestants: Why?

This morning, Taylor Seminary was pleased to host Julien Hammond, the Ecumenical and Interreligious Officer for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Edmonton, to speak in our chapel on finding unity among evangelical Protestants and Catholics.

Near the end of his time sharing, Mr. Hammond mentioned the often painful fact that the Catholic Eucharist is closed to Protestants. But he offered an interesting perspective on it.

To begin with, he noted that Catholics likewise normatively refrain from taking communion at other Christian communities (e.g. Anglican; Lutheran; Baptist). Then he pointed out that that this practice of withholding (from offering the sacrament to Protestants) and refraining (from taking the sacrament from Protestants) is not intended as a punitive judgment on these other communities. Rather, it is properly viewed as a self-imposed discipline — a form of fasting — which recognizes through abstinence the lamentable state of Christian disunity and is meant to spur us onto greater unity.

Think about it like this: just as a temporary hunger strike may be undertaken to highlight the need for social change in a particular institution, so intentionally withholding and refraining from partaking of communion between separated churches is a way to underscore the need to work with diligence and intentionality about healing ecclesial fissures.

To be sure, another Christian might reason very differently. They might say: “Why not think that the meaningfulness and beauty of shared communion would itself be a means of healing those very ecclesial fissures?” In other words, from the perspective of this critic, it could be that the practice of withholding and refraining could, ironically, perpetuate the very state of disunity that the practice is intended to address.

Frankly, I’m not sure which of these views is correct. Indeed, I suspect the reality may be more complex: it may be that at times the practice of withholding and refraining as a form of fasting could spur on more intentional work in healing the fissures but at other times, it could function to highlight the fissures and deepen the divides. But I can’t be sure since I am unaware of any “hard data” on this question. And so, we’re left with our intuitions.

To wrap up, my concern in this article is simply to note that recognizing how the practice is intended to be restorative rather than punitive may go some distance toward spurring mutual understanding and respect. In short, may we recognize that whether we share communion or not, we should all be committed to pursuing the unity of being and purpose that Christ desires for his church.

The post The Catholic Communion Table is Closed to Protestants: Why? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

If Hypocrisy were an Olympic Sport, Evangelicals would get the Gold

Like most folks, I am sick unto death of pointing out the morally vapid hypocrisy of American evangelicals when it comes to Donald Trump, but I can’t resist responding to this tweet from Michael Brown:

Call me a homophobic bigot, but I'll say it anyway. Choosing an out & proud "married" gay man to run for president, let alone become president, would contribute to the further degeneration & moral confusion of our society along with further attacks on our most fundamental rights.

— Dr. Michael L. Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown) February 8, 2020

Brown is aware that he will be called a homophobic bigot. But it is worth highlighting why the charge seems so plausible in this case. Evangelicals like Brown fall over themselves to excuse Trump’s grotesque immorality. A man who has cheated on all three of his wives multiple times, who paid off a porn star and Playboy bunny, who faces a couple of dozen charges of sexual assault, who bragged of grabbing women by their genitals, who sexualizes his own daughters, who regularly partied with Mr. Epstein, the list goes on and on and on. And that’s just the tip of a vast pile of rotting moral garbage that constitutes the public face of this man. Among his latest egregious actions, last week he mocked the words of Jesus at the National Prayer Breakfast while evangelical pastors laughed in the audience.

But all that is tolerable because he is “prolife” and yielding a crop of “conservative judges”.

By contrast, Buttigieg’s sin, being married to a man, makes him unfit for public office. It is on that topic that these leaders suddenly believe morality matters and that they must draw a line in the sand.

Yeah, that sure does look like homophobic bigotry. Behavior and reasoning like this provide very plausible evidence that Christians like Brown have an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people.

The post If Hypocrisy were an Olympic Sport, Evangelicals would get the Gold appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Confused Paradox of Omnipotence

How should we respond to the paradox of omnipotence? In classic mode, it is stated like this: can God make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

One plausible reply is to say that this is an example of language which appears to describe a meaningful state of affairs when, in fact, it does not.

In that case, the so-called “paradox” is analogous to saying “Dave is taller than himself”. At first blush, that seems to be a meaningful sentence. But in fact, it describes a contradictory state of affairs and thus it is not actually describing a property that Dave could possibly have.

Just as Dave could not possibly be taller than himself, so God could not possibly create a rock too big for him to lift. In each case, a seemingly meaningful challenge is, in fact, nothing more than nonsense. Thus, that which initially seems to be a challenge to omnipotence is, in fact, nothing more than a tribute to linguistic confusion.

The post The Confused Paradox of Omnipotence appeared first on Randal Rauser.