rlew.com

In California, the debate about legalizing same-sex marriage is coming to a head with a vote in the November election. An argument to keep marriage between one man and one woman is made in David Blankenhorn’s Op-Ed in the LA Times:

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood — biological, social and legal — into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.

There is lots to say about this, but Blankenhorn’s piece is refreshingly cogent for such an emotionally charged issue.

“Belief in God symbolically evaporated when more than a hundred atheists were ‘de-baptized’ with a blow dryer yesterday,” writes the Columbus Dispatch. The article quotes the ceremonial formula intoned by Frank Zindler:

“Do you agree that the magical potency of today’s ceremony is exactly equal to the magical efficacy of ceremonial baptism with dihydrogen oxide, and do you agree that the power of all magical ceremonies is nonexistent?”

If this didn’t make me so sad, I would find this rather funny.

A couple notes: First, this ceremony, albeit funny, shows that atheists continue to define themselves by what they are against. Sarcastic humor unites by tearing down a foe, but sarcasm is hardly creative. Nor does it create community.

Secondly, the de-baptismal formula quoted is utterly devoid of any sort of moral demand. Baptism in the Bible is about both faith and repentance from sin. At it’s barest meaning (i.e. devoid of “magic”), baptism is a statement and commitment to humility, growth and change. The de-baptism formula above is simply about declaring “unfaith,” which I find insipid and uninspiring. As such, and quite ironically, Christian baptism is more humanistic than this atheistic de-baptism.

Another recent trend: men pampering their bodies. Randy Stinson critiques the trend, calling it the feminization of the American male. This line critiquing Tony Glenville’s Top to Toe made me chuckle:

For instance, Glenville advises, “A special occasion calls for special treatment, and taking the time to visit your hairdresser, go for a massage, and have a facial scrub will all add to your confidence.” In another section, he tells us, “At sporting events, whether cheering your team on or participating yourself, the wrong footwear can completely skew an outfit.” I wonder if Chipper Jones knows this?

Stinson’s point is that pampering oneself encourages the sin of self-absorption. “We do not need prettier boys. We do not need softer men. What we need is a church culture that will call boys and men to lives of self sacrifice as exampled by the picture of Christ in Ephesians 5 who loved the church and gave himself for her to his own neglect and sacrifice.” [Read the article]

Do atheists want to go to church too? NY Magazine writes about an 850 person meeting of the Society for Ethical Culture. There’s a growing conversation about organizing their “religion.” Instead of atheists being just political activitists fighting for separation of church and state…

…some atheists are taking seriously the idea that atheism needs to stand for things, like evolution and ethics, not just against things, like God. The most successful movements in history, after all—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.—all have creeds, cathedrals, schools, hierarchies, rituals, money, clerics, and some version of a heavenly afterlife. Churches fill needs, goes the argument—they inculcate ethics, give meaning, build communities. “Science and reason are important,” says Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain of Harvard University. “But science and reason won’t visit you in the hospital.”

Essentially, some atheists want to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. The socializing functions of church are desirable, but the crux of the church—God and the Gospel—are to be laid to rest.

The movement to “churchify” atheism is in a very early stage. There is disagreement even on what to call it. To define a movement simply by what one is against (i.e. “atheist” or “Anti-Theist”) is strikingly uncreative and uninspiring for a movement that celebrates humanism and achievement. More importantly, to define and “canonize” what a movement believes (as opposed to what one simply stands against) will be a challenge that I don’t see atheists overcoming any time soon.

To be passionately anti-Something easily galvanizes movements. Stones thrown from any angle can all hit the target. But to be passionately for-Something takes submission to an authority greater than the community itself. That authority, in turn, shapes the community. Christians look to the Bible. Muslims look to the Qur’an. The U.S. looks to the Constitution. Since some of the defining characteristics of atheism is skepticism of authority and even the possibility of knowing anything for sure, I’m very interested in seeing how the movement tries to define itself.

I must say, as a leader in an organized religious movement, it’s hard enough keeping people together when God is on our side. Good luck without.