Battleground: Religion 2 volumes (Battleground Series)

BATTLEGROUND RELIGION VOLUME 1 (A–G)

Edited by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut • London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Battleground religion / edited by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–313–34098–7 (set: alk. paper) ISBN 978–0–313–34099–4 (vol. 1: alk. paper) ISBN 978–0–313–34100–7 (vol. 2: alk. paper) 1. Religion and sociology. I. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. BL60.B315 2009 200—dc22 2008038760 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2009 by Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2008038760 ISBN: 978–0-313–34098–7 (set) 978–0-313–34099–4 (vol. 1) 978–0-313–34100–7 (vol. 2) First published in 2009 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.greenwood.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS Guide to Related Topics Series Foreword Introduction

ix xiii xv

Entries: Abortion

1

Addiction and Recovery

10

AIDS

17

Aliens

23

Amish

30

Animal Sacrifice

37

Animation as a New Medium

44

Anti-Catholicism and American Politics

49

Apocalypticism and Nuclear War

54

Bible and Poverty

63

Birth Control and Family Planning

69

Capital Punishment

77

Capitalism and Socialism

83

v

vi

|

Contents

Christian Zionism

89

Civil Disobedience

97

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America

104

Cloning

114

Cosmology

119

“Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism

127

Divorce

133

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

141

Evangelical Christianity in America

153

Evangelical Men’s Movements

160

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

167

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools

174

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies

183

Female Subordination in Christian Thought

191

Gambling and the Religious Conscience

199

Genetic Research

206

Genocide

211

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology

217

Gospel of Prosperity

224

Graphic Arts

229

Health Reform Movements

237

Higher Intelligence Animals

244

Homeschooling

252

Homosexuality

258

Hucksterism and Religious Scandals

267

Hutterites: Communal Living versus Individual Freedom

274

Immigration

283

Islamic Nationalism

291

Jailhouse Conversions

299

Just War

305

Liberation Theology

311

Contents | vii

Marketing Religion

319

Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy

325

Muslim Minorities in the West

332

Nation of Islam

341

Nationalism, Militarism, and Religion

347

Native American Religious Freedom

353

Neuroethics

358

New Religions as Growth Industry

365

Organ Transplants

373

Personal Pacifism versus Political Nonviolence

379

Prayer in Public Schools

386

Prime Time Religion

392

Religious Conversion

399

Religious Diplomacy

405

Religious Publishing

411

Religious Symbols on Government Property

417

Right-Wing Extremism

425

Rock Music and Christian Ethics

432

Same-Sex Marriage

439

Sanctuary Movement

445

School Funding

451

Science Fiction

458

Separation of Church and State

463

Terrorism

471

Universal Health Care as Religious Ethical Issue

479

Vegetarianism as Religious Witness

485

Western Cinema

489

World Religion Aesthetics

497

Bibliography

503

About the Editor and Contributors

505

Index

511

This page intentionally left blank

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS art Animation as a New Medium Graphic Arts Prime Time Religion Science Fiction Western Cinema World Religion Aesthetics

culture Animal Sacrifice Muslim Minorities in the West Prime Time Religion Western Cinema

economics and business Bible and Poverty Capitalism and Socialism Gambling and the Religious Conscience Immigration Marketing Religion Prime Time Religion Religious Publishing Rock Music and Christian Ethics Sanctuary Movement

ix

x

|

Guide to Related Topics

extremism Apocalypticism and Nuclear War “Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism Female Subordination in Christian Thought Gospel of Prosperity Hucksterism and Religious Scandals Nation of Islam New Religions as Growth Industry Right-Wing Extremism

personal behavior Abortion Addiction and Recovery AIDS Animal Sacrifice Birth Control and Family Planning Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America Divorce Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Gambling and the Religious Conscience Homosexuality Jailhouse Conversions Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy Same-Sex Marriage Vegetarianism as Religious Witness

politics and political ideas Bible and Poverty Capitalism and Socialism Christian Zionism Genocide Islamic Nationalism Just War Liberation Theology Nationalism, Militarism, and Religion Personal Pacifism versus Political Nonviolence Religious Conversion Religious Diplomacy Separation of Church and State Terrorism

religious impact on society Anti-Catholicism and American Politics Apocalypticism and Nuclear War Christian Zionism Civil Disobedience

Guide to Related Topics |

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Evangelical Christianity in America Evangelical Men’s Movements Evangelicals and Environmentalism Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools Female Subordination in Christian Thought Gospel of Prosperity Health Reform Movements Hucksterism and Religious Scandals Immigration Islamic Nationalism Jailhouse Conversions Liberation Theology Nationalism, Militarism, and Religion New Religions as Growth Industry Personal Pacifism versus Political Nonviolence Religious Symbols on Government Property Rock Music and Christian Ethics Sanctuary Movement School Funding Universal Health Care as Religious Ethical Issue

science Aliens Brain Research Cloning Cosmology “Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies Genetic Research Global Warming and Prosperity Theology Higher Intelligence Animals Neuroethics Organ Transplants Science Fiction

social policy Abortion Addiction and Recovery AIDS Bible and Poverty Birth Control and Family Planning Capital Punishment Evangelicals and Environmentalism

xi

xii

| Guide to Related Topics

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies Female Subordination in Christian Thought Gambling and the Religious Conscience Genocide Health Reform Movements Homeschooling Homosexuality Immigration Jailhouse Conversions Just War Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy Native American Religious Freedom Prayer in Public Schools Religious Conversion Religious Diplomacy Same-Sex Marriage Sanctuary Movement School Funding Separation of Church and State Terrorism Universal Health Care as Religious Ethical Issue

subcultures Amish Animal Sacrifice Civil Disobedience Evangelical Christianity in America Evangelical Men’s Movements Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools Global Warming and Prosperity Theology Gospel of Prosperity Homeschooling Hutterites: Communal Living versus Individual Freedom Immigration Islamic Nationalism Muslim Minorities in the West Nation of Islam Native American Religious Freedom New Religions as Growth Industry Prayer in Public Schools Religious Symbols on Government Property Right-Wing Extremism Vegetarianism as Religious Witness

SERIES FOREWORD Students, teachers, and librarians frequently need resources for researching the hot-button issues of contemporary society. Whether for term papers, debates, current-events classes, or to just keep informed, library users need balanced, in-depth tools to serve as a launching pad for obtaining a thorough understanding of all sides of those debates that continue to provoke, anger, challenge, and divide us all. The sets in Greenwood’s Battleground series are just such a resource. Each Battleground set focuses on one broad area of culture in which the debates and conflicts continue to be fast and furious—for example, religion, sports, popular culture, sexuality and gender, and science and technology. Each volume comprises dozens of entries on the most timely and far-reaching controversial topics, such as abortion, capital punishment, drugs, ecology, the economy, immigration, and politics. The entries—all written by scholars with a deep understanding of the issues—provide readers with a non-biased assessment of these topics. What are the main points of contention? Who holds each position? What are the underlying, unspoken concerns of each side of the debate? What might the future hold? The result is a balanced, thoughtful reference resource that will not only provide students with a solid foundation for understanding the issues, but will challenge them to think more deeply about their own beliefs. In addition to an in-depth analysis of these issues, sets include sidebars on important events or people that help enliven the discussion, and each entry includes a list of Further Reading that helps readers find the next step in their research. At the end of volume 2, the readers will find a comprehensive Bibliography and Index.

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION Why dedicate one of the Battleground series of encyclopedias to the subject of religion and social issues in the United States? It is an important question to answer by way of the Introduction to the volume that follows. If there were ever any doubts about the importance of religion in modern social and politics issues, then these doubts have been laid to rest at the end of the twentieth century, and especially as the twenty-first century gets going. Religious concerns are not only on the sidelines but also at the very center of many social and political issues in this nation, and around the world. A LOOK AT RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES Consider, first of all, the extent of religious belief and practice in the United States. A poll conducted by Gallup, working with Baylor University, resulted in some very interesting information for the year 2006. For example, they found that religious affiliation in the United States includes: Jewish (2.5%); black Protestant (5%); white Protestant Mainline (22.1%); Evangelical Protestant (33.6%); Roman Catholic (21.2%); and others and unaffiliated (15.7%). In short, the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian (81.9%), 60.7 percent of which are Protestants. Consideration of these numbers, however, is not complete until we consider what the implication of these numbers might mean for American society. The answer to that question, however, turns out to be a bit more complicated. Cathy Lynn Grossman, a journalist for USA Today, responded to this study at Baylor University by writing that American attitudes toward politics did not necessarily

xv

xvi

|

Introduction

line up with specific church affiliation, but with more general religious attitudes— especially about the nature of God: Though 91.8% say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force, they had four distinct views of God’s personality and engagement in human affairs. These Four Gods—dubbed by researchers Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant—tell more about people’s social, moral and political views and personal piety than the familiar categories of Protestant/Catholic/Jew or even red state/blue state. For example: 45.6% of all Americans say the federal government “should advocate Christian values,” but 74.5% of believers in an authoritarian God do. Sociologist Paul Froese says the survey finds the stereotype that conservatives are religious and liberals are secular is “simply not true. Political liberals and conservative are both religious. They just have different religious views.” (Grossman, USA Today Online, September 11, 2006) Clearly, religious belief is both widespread and influential on a host of life issues, and as Americans, we are used to the idea that religious beliefs influence and impact on attitudes toward social and political issues, especially in the United States. How do these attitudes influence political thought? The answer to that question is precisely the purpose of this collection of entries gathered in Battleground: Religion. Just looking over the list of general topic areas that organize the entries into general subject areas can be surprising. • • • • • • • •

Medicine Politics and Economics War and Violence Media and Business Art, Culture, and Aesthetics Science Environment Minorities and Social Relations

For example, many young people may not even know that there were religious attitudes toward something like animation as an art form—an important entry in this set. It is important to know that religious leaders are deeply concerned about fraudulent religious behavior, also, which is covered in the entry “Hucksterism.” Some may be surprised with an entry on “Aliens.” On alien life, for example, readers may be surprised to know that there has been considerable attention to the question “What if we discover intelligent life outside our world?” among religious thinkers. It may seem an even greater surprise to note, with Dr. Ed Higgins, that many religious thinkers, novelists, and philosophers find the prospect downright exciting, and hardly threatening at all. In fact, readers of Battleground: Religion may well be the most surprised at the fact that religious thinkers can be found on many sides of virtually any issue. Merely being religious does not automatically make one either politically conservative or liberal. Deeply religious social philosophers and theologians will be

Introduction

found on many sides of critically important social issues facing modern Americans. How can this be? RELIGION AND AMERICAN HISTORY: A SURVEY OF IDEAS The entries in this set do not usually address religion in American history, except in those few occasions where a historical perspective is important to understand the contemporary issues. However, in this Introduction, it is important to take a historical perspective in order to establish why religion in American life is so very central to the society that has emerged in the twenty-first century. Indeed, it would be difficult to argue with the fact that religion was a major element in the very founding of the colonies that led to the United States of America. Before it was part of the United States, for example, the colony of Penn’s Woods (Pennsylvania), administered by the young William Penn, the Quaker son of Lord Admiral Penn, was a haven of free thought and experimentation with tolerance. Quakers were not the only religious groups that were welcome there—other religious minorities who had faced serious persecution in Western and Eastern Europe found a refuge—including fellow religious pacifists like the Mennonites and the “Dunkers,” better known as the Church of the Brethren. In fact, it was Penn’s “Frame of Government” that provided a major source of inspiration for what would later become the Constitution of the United States. Relations with Native Americans were also deeply impacted by early European Christian settlers. The biblical stories of Joshua and the Israelites conquering the so-called promised land (and destroying the previous population of Canaanites), unfortunately provided inspiration for some of the worst abuses of the indigenous population of North America (as the same story inspired frightful behavior in other colonies like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). On the other hand, the religious interaction of European religious ideas, and some Native religious and cultural ideas, produced some fascinating social and religious movements and innovations. For example, the Iroquois Confederation of the Six Tribes in what is today territories in the northeast United States and South Eastern Canada, undoubtedly also had influence on some of the framing of the early United States’ Constitution. Interestingly, among the Iroquois converts to Christianity was a young woman named Kateri Tekekwitha, recently moving toward becoming the first Native American Saint in the Roman Catholic Church. The Seneca Prophet Handsome Lake inaugurated a religious movement among the Iroquois peoples that incorporated interesting aspects of the Christian message. Other Native Prophets would do the same, including the famous Wavoka, the prophet of the Ghost Dance of the nineteenth century. After the tumultuous Civil War, it was the Quakers that President Grant turned to for assistance in forming a policy of care and relations with remaining Native American peoples. The forming of a system of sending clergy and religious idealists as government representatives to Native American nations was known as Grants Quaker Policy, although many more than just Quakers were involved—and involved for specifically religious reasons, believing in justice for Native Americans. Even though their idealism did not always work out in

| xvii

xviii

|

Introduction

instituting the best policies for Native cultural survival—the alternatives were arguably worse. The Civil War itself, of course, is hard to study apart from the tremendous religious influences. Slavery was a matter of religious devotion for many Southerners, who believed that God had “ordained” the white race to be superior. Just as powerful, however, was the religious zeal of Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, publisher of The Liberator, the Grimke sisters, and even the revolutionary John Brown. All of them were fiery abolitionists, but it was Brown who believed he was taking violent action to free slaves at the behest of God. Finally, it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the religious conversions of African Americans in unifying the African American population into a coherent and united cultural group in the United States. The Black Church was, and arguably still is, the center and key to survival for African American culture, and the Church remains a major cultural source and wellspring of such powerful cultural contributions as the many varieties of African American music which is now so much a part of the general American self-identity—so much so that it would be difficult to imagine a modern United States without the influence of these musical and cultural forms. The move westward—one of the great cultural legacies of American selfidentity—is also hard to imagine without the impact of the Methodist Tent Revivals and camp meetings. These were religious services, often conducted in series lasting a week or two, where people would come from far distances and literally camp in the vicinity of the central meeting tents. Established churches were rare in much of the Western movement, and camp meetings became one of the most stable forms of religious life and instruction during this period. Although forms of Methodism were often involved, other American Christian religious movements formed as a result of the camp meetings as well. Religious summer camps arguably evolved from such experiences in history, and today one of the most common American religious institutions are summer camps that cater to Christian, Jewish, and now Muslim young people and families. Finally, the nineteenth century also saw the rise of the anti-alcoholism movement often called The Temperance Movement, which combined religious zeal against the abuse of alcohol with a growing feminist element, as religious women especially rallied around the cause of anti-alcoholism because of its devastating impact on families. The movement led to the ill-fated American experiment of banning all alcohol consumption in Prohibition (1920–1933, see the entry “Addiction and Recovery”). Religious life seemed to take on a more supportive political and personal role at the beginning of the twentieth century, as the world faced two massive conflicts that disrupted life throughout Europe and involved major commitments of the United States as well. Although major and important religious thinkers were active during the two world wars in both Europe and the United States, more public forms of religious life experienced a fascinating renewal of interest beginning with the Jesus Movement of the late 1960s, and into the 1970s. The Jesus Movement in America is only recently becoming a subject of serious historical interest. As many young people became disillusioned with some

Introduction

of the more destructive aspects of the hippie movement (especially the use of more serious drugs and alcohol), many of these young Americans became attracted to a new, youth-oriented and trendy presentation of Christianity being preached in southern California, and other major cities like Nashville. Often called Jesus freaks, the movement gave a major boost to such contemporary American movements as Christian rock music and other forms of contemporary culture (e.g., Christian comic books) that throughout American history were often considered outside traditional Christianity. Finally, the rise of the religious Right in America seems to have been a response, ironically, to the success of President Jimmy Carter in asserting his evangelical upbringing as a part of his campaign. Before Carter’s campaigns, the presence of Evangelical Protestant Christianity was not an entirely public phenomenon, but Carter’s presidency changed this for a long period. It is now known to be one of the most numerous expressions of Christianity after Roman Catholicism, in terms of sheer numbers. Soon after Carter’s election, aspects of the more conservative side of Evangelical Christianity began to unite around the leadership of such conservative Christian spokespersons as Dr. James Dobson, Rev. Jerry Falwell, and the television magnate Pat Robertson. For the first time in American political history, the religious Right became deeply active in electoral politics, and their influence has been seen to be key in the success of both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as presidents. The end of the twentieth century, and beginning of the twenty-first century, however, has seen the renewal and rise of the Christian Left. The major movement of social concern for education, welfare, and care for the poor at the beginning of the twentieth century is often called The Social Gospel Movement. The son of a German American pastor, Dr. Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918) was one of the most prominent advocates of this early twentieth-century religious movement that rallied many Protestant Christians toward supporting the creation of programs for the alleviation of social ills such as urban poverty, illiteracy, and slums in the United States. It is often suggested that two world wars dampened the hopes of the Social Gospel Movement, and gave rise to a more cynical, or even despairing and conservative sense of religious expression that found its height in the Religious Right. In such a view, evil is not to be overcome, but controlled by firm policies of government, and in the home. But times are changing yet again as we move into the second decade of the twenty-first century. Sojourners magazine is only one expression of the increasingly active Christian Left, arguably an update and renewal of the Social Gospel Movements of a century before, but now including such modern issues as global warming and environmental concern in its widening social agenda. Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, is now as prominent a spokesperson for American religious political attitudes as his religious/political counterparts on the right, with whom he is often matched up in radio and televised debates. Similarly, Rabbi Michael Lerner, as the editor of Tikkun (meaning to repair or reform) represents a progressive Jewish left movement increasingly outspoken in American and international politics. There are signs of unrest with traditional political views in the growing American Muslim communities as well.

|

xix

xx

|

Introduction

“WAVES” OF RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS IN AMERICAN LIFE In reading through this obviously brief religious survey of attitudes and events, it is hard to avoid the impression that religion in the United States seems to advance in waves—or perhaps in ways that remind us of Georg Friedrich Hegel’s notion that ideas seem to give rise to reactions, and then there is some kind of compromise which expresses another idea, which again gives rise to a reaction, and so on. It is certainly clear that religious trends are clearly traceable in American culture—an indication that religious attitudes, like other fashionable ideas, are also products of their time, as well as products of American religious devotion. The point is, of course, that each wave of religious attitudes, whether tending toward the Right or Left politically, convinces us that understanding social and political life without paying attention to religious attitudes is to have only a very incomplete understanding of those events. Along these lines, it is important to state clearly that these volumes make no claim to be comprehensive in their coverage of issues related to religion in American social and political issues. That would require a loose-leaf binder, with monthly updates mailed out every month. In short—religious life changes with the times, like the issues themselves. At the time of the writing of this set, for example, there is another religious movement that is very much a part of the American fabric—namely a kind of generalized spirituality that is not affiliated with any particular church, or even religion. The shelves of self-help books in national bookstore chains (a commercial phenomenon that itself has tended to increase the impact of religious books that are among the few selected for display in these chain stores) are lined with titles that tend to borrow ideas, rituals, and teachings from many different religious traditions, including Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian perspectives. For example, you can buy many different books on Christian yoga, and a book on the Muslim Jesus. An American musical group known as Aradhna is growing in popularity—singing Christian songs in Hindi, the national language of India, and performing with guitar and sitar. Jai Uttal is an American-born Jewish musician who performs a sophisticated musical form that combines South Indian musical forms and instruments with Western contemporary rock and jazz themes. The ultra-Orthodox Jewish-American Reggae singer, Matisyahu, packs concert halls throughout the world. Actor Richard Gere makes no secret of his Buddhist religious affiliations, and has been an outspoken advocate for Tibetan independence. Films featuring religious themes—Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ being the most startling example—have performed so well at the box office that they compete with even the most sophisticated products of Hollywood and are themselves, arguably, a product of Hollywood. In short, what we are seeing is a level of public expression of American religiosity that is not only unique for its public and thus visible expressions but also for the fascinating levels of mixture, influence, and involvement with virtually all aspects of American life, and into international themes as well. Whether American religious attitudes and practices will ever return to being a subject considered

Introduction

private and inappropriate for public display (as it was in the 1950s and before), is very hard to predict at this point in American history, but it seems highly unlikely. So much for the loud proclamations of sociologists and anthropologists who spoke in the 1950s of the rise of secularism. HOW RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES INFLUENCE PUBLIC POLICY AND ISSUES Religion, if nothing else, suggests some basic realities to its adherents. First, to believe in a religion usually involves the idea that there is a certain intentional order to the universe, the world, and human society. There is, in short, a way that human society is supposed to be, and it is not merely a matter of chance or random selection. This is already a powerful influence on people’s lives. This attitude can suggest to people that there is either an ideal we should try to return to (a kind of golden age), or an ideal that we ought to strive to achieve in the future; either way, religions can provide a guide to our efforts to build a better society. But these attitudes can go in different directions. In Christianity, for example, beliefs about what can happen in the near future can have a deeply determinative impact on political and social attitudes. For example, if you believe that what lies ahead of human society is increasing destruction and conflict until a sudden day of judgment or reckoning, this would tend to dampen one’s hopes for human achievement, and support a kind of life boat ethics that simply tries to survive the horrors of these troubled times. The commercial success of the Left Behind books by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, suggests that such ideas are not limited to a few. If, on the other hand, you believe that humanity was given instructions by God precisely because the ideals in those instructions are actually possible (why else, they would ask, were they given?), then such views can fire innovative, and even revolutionary attempts to transform human society and work for the solution of many social problems that have dogged the human experiment for as long as we can remember—unequal distribution of resources, and the suffering of people because of race or culture or gender. In other words—one can either take the view that humanity is permanently tainted, and thus we simply try to get through as best we can (and for the haves this often means a militant desire to just hold on) or humanity has simply failed to live up to its calling, and such a view calls on us to strive toward ideals of human creativity and flourishing that are possible precisely because they have been taught by revered religious leaders (Moses, Jesus, Muhammed, etc.). In either case, ethics matter, policies matter, and decisions matter. If one had very little sense of any actual intentions for humanity—that is, humans are just biologically random events—then it would be difficult to avoid a certain cynicism. But if there is a purpose—a reason, something that is greater than humanity itself—then it is hard to avoid seeing how such attitudes can have a powerful influence on social and political life, arguably both negative and positive. Religion, in short, provides a powerful form of what should be in the political vocabulary, something that is beyond merely what is.

|

xxi

xxii

|

Introduction

THE POLITICAL ROLE OF RELIGIOUS TEXTS Many religious traditions in the United States—and especially the three most prominent religious traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—have central texts. A rather important part of their religious life, therefore, is engaged in the interpretation and application of their religious texts to contemporary circumstances. They all share the conviction that these ancient texts can constantly be reinterpreted and reread to speak to the circumstances they are living through. This is already an interesting religious assumption, but what is important to note is this: the interpretation of religious texts is a critically important aspect of what religious Americans believe about faith, and social and political policies. How Americans read their religious texts, then, is critical. In some cases, it is hard to avoid the notion that some Americans make up their minds about social issues based on other, outside influences, and then simply find texts to justify those beliefs. In other cases, however, it is equally hard to avoid the clear influence of the texts themselves. For example, one can read the Old Testament Prophets like the eighth-century b.c.e. prophet Amos, who insisted that his hearers should: Let Justice roll down like waters; And Righteousness like an ever flowing stream. It is hard to miss why such words have fired the souls of such social reformers as William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, Cesar Chavez, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. At the same time, it is equally easy to see how some modern Christians might read St. Paul in Romans 13, who seems, anyway, to be calling for a certain kind of patriotic duty toward the state when he writes: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (Rom 13:1–2) The point is, of course, that in each of these passages there are matters of interpretation. Amos’s call for justice was clearly not widely understood to apply, for example, to those Japanese Americans during World War II who lost farms and homes by being sent to American concentration camps in California, Colorado, and Arizona. Yet that same passage may fire social reformers to protest against such treatment of fellow citizens. Similarly, some Christians may quote Romans 13 to insist on a strong sense of patriotism and supporting all American military actions, but these same Christians would presumably be quite hesitant to apply the same passage to early American settlers facing oppressive laws from their British superiors in revolutionary times! Clearly, texts may not change, but times do; and with the times come different ideas about what these texts mean. In fact, a very interesting new field of biblical studies has begun in academic departments of religion and biblical studies called Reception History, which studies not so much the societies of the Bible, but the social responses to the Bible in the long history since it was written, and especially in recent centuries. As you read these entries, pay attention

Introduction

to the interesting ways in which texts are often cited, or used, or not used, in the various arguments presented. HOW TO USE THIS BOOK This alphabetical collection of entries is intended to introduce the reader to a wide variety of social and political issues on which religious leaders, thinkers, and practitioners have made significant contributions to the debates surrounding those issues. Each entry is a basic survey of the issues at hand, and often reflects on the different points of view that are represented by different religious affiliations. Given that the religious affiliation of the United States is overwhelmingly Christian, however, it is absolutely true that the majority of contributors are Christian, and reflect on social and political debates within the Christian tradition. Where possible, perspectives from minority religious perspectives were considered. There is, however, another reason why the book is overwhelmingly Christian in its orientation. Given the numbers of religious affiliations in the United States (76–82 percent depending on the poll numbers that you read compared to 10–13 percent nonreligious or secular, and less than two percent each for Muslim or Jewish) it is arguable that Christian attitudes have had the greatest impact on American perception of social and political attitudes. In short, what Christians believe and do matters a great deal for all American political and social issues. It is certainly the case that Judaism has also had a significant impact on many aspects of American society, and we have tried to take this into consideration as well, but this is clearly not a major focus of this work. Students looking for areas of research—perhaps to write a paper or begin a project—should survey a number of entries within a given area, for example medicine, the media, environmental issues, and then focus on some of the entries within that area. Each entry briefly surveys some of the issues, and then provides a list of suggested further readings. It is important to understand that each contributor has attempted to survey the issue, rather than provide a comprehensive overview of the issue. In conclusion, one opinion gives rise to another. If there is something that these volumes certainly celebrate in the midst of such divisive and often emotional issues, it is the American spirit of free and open debate. This nation was founded by deeply religious people who sacrificed heavily—often at the cost of their lives—for a place where they could live out their convictions. It would be a sad legacy for Americans if religious attitudes themselves were allowed to limit, or even in some cases end, this truly amazing experiment in religious and human achievement, namely religious tolerance itself. As such, even when readers disagree, they can celebrate precisely the testimony to tolerance that these entries represent. Dr. Daniel L. Smith-Christopher Prof. Theological Studies Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles 2008

| xxiii

This page intentionally left blank

A ABORTION Debates on abortion involve legal, political, bioethical, theological, and social dimensions. Central aspects of these debates include claims about rights (e.g., rights of privacy, rights of women’s health, and rights on the unborn) and ethical values (e.g., the value of freedom, the dignity of life, and social justice). The abortion debate continues to be one of the most divisive issues in the United States, evidenced by active political demonstrations of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups, recent legal challenges to existing abortion laws, and sustained dialogue within the religious and public spheres. THE CURRENT SITUATION It is estimated that there are 1.2–1.3 million abortions a year in the United States, but it is difficult to estimate due to underreporting (frequently cited sources include the Centers for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute). Statistics reveal that abortions cut across political lines (e.g., they occur with nearly equal regularity among the various states—both heavily Republican and heavily Democrat), religious and denominational lines (e.g., rates of abortions among Catholics are equivalent to national averages), and racial and ethnic lines (e.g., whites constitute the highest total numbers, though African American and Hispanic women have higher rates by proportion of their populations). About 88 percent of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or the first trimester. Abortions are performed for a variety of reasons, including problems with the fetus (e.g., extreme birth defects or other abnormalities detected in utero), threats to the health of the mother (e.g., ectopic pregnancies 1

2

| Abortion

and other complications), and, most commonly, unwanted or unexpected pregnancies (e.g., rarer instances of incest and rape account for about 1 percent of the annual total), to more frequent choices based on evaluation of life circumstances such as work responsibilities, economic difficulties, or troubled relationship status. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ABORTION In the history of the United States, New York was the first state to restrict abortions in 1828. Prior to that legislation, states followed common law that allowed abortions prior to the sensed movements of the fetus, or “quickening” that occurs around the sixteenth to eighteenth weeks. After New York’s prohibition, the tendencies of state legislation on abortion moved from one of permissiveness to restriction, and, by 1900, all states had enacted measures outlawing abortion. In the decades that followed, many states began to define the legal parameters of abortion based on the unique circumstances involved in particular abortions. In the last 40 years, state laws moved to protect the right to an abortion (and to dissuade so-called back alley abortions), even as state programs helped to reduce teenage pregnancies and abortions. One of the central aspects of the debate involves the legal right to an abortion; however, it is the theological disagreement vis-à-vis the significance of this legal right that, in reality, drives the abortion debate. THEOLOGICAL VOICES Abortion constitutes one of the most polemic debates among persons who hold faith claims, theologians, and organized religious structures. Generalizations about theological views on abortion are frequently too simplistic and inaccurate. Theologians, such as Lisa Sowle Cahill, critique both sides of the debate for naively assuming their own conclusions and affirming their own worldviews. Cahill writes: Not infrequently, [both sides of the abortion debate] co-opt the ‘feminist; or ‘pro-life’ language of the opposition, reinventing its meaning within their own symbol system. They fail to engage their interlocutors in empathetic dialogue toward mutually acceptable solutions. Instead, they proceed as if their own narratives—symbolically enshrining the sanctity of unborn life on the one side, and women’s right to control their own bodies on the other—were a clear and adequate basis on which to enact policies that affect both fetuses and women. (2005, 178) The significance of these narratives and symbols—which underpin religious values, meanings, and self-understandings—helps explain why abortion constitutes one of the most contentious topics for religious groups. We can describe general positions undertaken by different theologians. Many evangelical Christians, whether individuals, such as Charles Colson and George Weigel, or denominations, such as Baptists (particularly Southern Baptists, as

Abortion

there are disagreements about positions within Baptists), and Pentecostals, argue that abortion is a sin that contradicts Jesus’s message of love and the integrity of life. In 1994, Evangelicals and Catholics coauthored a document titled Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, which called for mutual cooperation based on shared beliefs and hopes. Among these shared beliefs, the document held: “As the unborn must be protected, so also must women be protected from their current rampant exploitation by the abortion industry and by fathers who refuse to accept responsibility for mothers and children. Abortion on demand, which is the current rule in America, must be recognized as a massive attack on the dignity, rights, and needs of women.” Other Christians contend that abortions, though unfortunate and usually tragic, can promote justice because they represent an individual’s exercise of God-given freedom, and prevent the proliferation of unwanted pregnancies that may result in low quality of life for the children. For example, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a national coalition of religious and religiously affiliated organizations from 15 denominations, including members from the Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalism, and Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Judaism, defends the Constitutional rights of women to end pregnancies before the stage of fetal viability. They advocate for family planning through freedom of choice (including the exercise of contraception and, if necessary, abortion) that is governed by an individual’s choice and religious and moral beliefs. In response, theologians such as Stanley Hauerwas hold that the narrative context of Christianity renders abortion incompatible with the Christian witness. Focusing on the Christian community rather than on individual actors, Hauerwas believes that the fundamental question should be: “What kind of people should we be to welcome children in the world?” (Hauerwas 1981, 198). This normative question about parenthood reflects the decisive character and commitments of a Christian community. Hauerwas repudiates claims that abortion empowers women; he notes: “But even more ironic, for many women, rather than a declaration of independence, abortion is a subtle vote of no-confidence in their ability to determine their destiny” (Hauerwas 1981, 201). Whereas The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice affirms that an individual’s conscience may be the definitive guide vis-à-vis the choice of abortion, Hauerwas claims that conscience is deeply rooted in the communal witness of Christians and could never justify such a choice. A comprehensive articulation of the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is developed in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1993). He argues that the incomparable worth of the human person must be extended to the unborn, for the Gospel of Life protects the integrity of life in opposition to the culture of death (e.g., abortion, murder, genocide, and euthanasia) that threatens innocent life. According to the Pope, “[t]his culture [of death] is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency” (Pope John Paul II 1993, paragraph 12). The Pope gainsays efficiency as a legitimate ground for

| 3

4

| Abortion

abortion, for abortion violates God’s law not to kill. Though he does not equate abortion and contraception, the Pope identifies them as fruits of the same tree. While noting the pressure of real-life difficulties influencing decisions of contraception and abortion, the Pope cautions that God’s law disavows efficiency and individualism. While we are to trust on consciences, the Pope insists that our consciences may be wrong in guiding us toward undertaking intrinsically evil actions. Catholic ethicists, such as Lisa Sowle Cahill, support such claims, but they caution that church teaching on abortion should not focus solely on the authority of the church hierarchy, but rather should address broader questions of social justice and the common good. She writes: “What the Vatican fails to appreciate, however, is that abortion functions for many as a symbol of women’s rights; to effectively promote other means of limiting family size, the Vatican must also demonstrate strong, practical support for women” (Cahill 1996, 213). Pope John Paul II further insists that life begins at the moment of conception, and, hence, he describes abortion as always tantamount to murder: “The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life” (Pope John Paul II 1993, paragraph 58). The unborn human represents the most innocent life that requires protection and care—the same protection and care owed to a fully developed person. In terms of the political and legal mechanisms developed to ensure these protections, Pope John Paul II follows the model of laws developed by Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). The root of law is eternal law (God’s eternal blueprint for an objective moral order), which underlies natural law (human participation in eternal law that requires humans to act rationally and virtuously and in accordance with God’s ordained natural order). In turn, natural law underpins human law (the application of natural law to specific communities). As such, God’s law applies to institutional and political structures; in terms of abortion, the right to life (secured by eternal and natural law) mandates duties of the states to protect it (human law). Failure to uphold these duties and rights has destructive social and moral ramifications: “Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law . . . In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people” (Pope John Paul II 1993, paragraph 72). These social aspects of relations reflect both the causes and effects of abortion. It is important to note that there is also a debate about abortion in the Jewish and Islamic traditions as well. Within Islam, some Muslims interpret the Quranic prohibition against killing children to apply to unborn children, while others do not. Like Judaism, Islam clearly favors the life of the mother over the life of an unborn child, but a child (and fetus) that is able to live apart from the mother is considered to have rights, suggesting a recognition within Islam of stages of life, and thus legal standing, during gestation. In Judaism, life is often defined as beginning at birth (that is, when the head leaves the womb), but here

Abortion

| 5

RECENT STATE MEASURES: SOUTH DAKOTA South Dakota lawmakers passed an abortion bill in February 2006 that challenged the precedent of Roe v. Wade. The Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act makes it a felony for doctors to perform abortions (including cases of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest) except to save the life of the mother. The act responds to the Roe decision in that its purpose is “to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life” (Preamble to the act). Does this amount to an absolutist legal position that fails to address moral choice, religious freedoms, and the exercise of one’s conscience (as argued by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice)? Or, does it offer protection for innocent life from the “contraceptive mentality” and “culture of death” discussed by Pope John Paul II? The act contends that scientific discoveries subsequent to the 1973 Roe decision confirm that life begins at the moment of conception. Hence, the act asserts that the guarantee of the due process of law applies equally to born and unborn human beings: “a pregnant mother and her unborn child each possess a natural and inalienable right to life” (Section One). Section Two criminalizes any act—whether it involved administering, prescribing, procuring, or selling—that has the “specific intention of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.” Section Four describes one qualification, where acts prohibited in Section Two may be allowable to prevent the death of a pregnant woman (even if “reasonable medical efforts” are required to preserve both the life of the mother and the unborn child). The challenge issued by South Dakota’s act will certainly receive extensive judicial scrutiny and another reevaluation of the Roe decision.

again, there are authorities that debate this issue, and the fetus is considered a partial life. When a full life (e.g., the mother) is threatened by a partial life, the full life takes precedent. Therefore, while Judaism does not normally allow abortion in circumstances of physical defects in the fetus, or as a means of mere birth control, it does allow for abortion in circumstances of danger to the mother. In some Jewish contexts, however, the definition of danger to the mother is a matter of serious debate beyond merely physical danger, as in the cases of rape, where serious emotional and psychological danger may be at play. BIOETHICAL ISSUES: STATUS OF THE EMBRYO Scientists debate the precise stage of cellular development when one can identify the organism as an individual person. Some argue, as does the Catholic Church, and theologians such as Germain Grisez (1970), that life begins when egg and sperm unite. Consequently, from the moment of conception the zygote is endowed with personhood and all the concomitant rights owed to such a person. Other researchers (and theologians such as Paul Ramsey and Allan Wolter) argue that this moment does not establish individuality, because thereafter the zygote undergoes cellular division, which may include splitting into identical twins, and therefore individuality is indeterminate and potentially reversible. This development, identified as the process of individuation, typically

6

| Abortion

takes about two weeks. The moral implications of these two perspectives shed light on evaluations of abortion as either the murder of an innocent person, or the elimination of cellular material. These conflicts of interpretation emerge strongly in questions about the legal, ethical, and theological dimensions of stem-cell research or in vitro fertilization reproductive techniques. The conclusions of scientific analyses of cellular development thus become intertwined with ethical and theological inquiries into the moral status of the embryo. The debate emerges when science and medicine ask “what can we do?,” and ethics and theology ask “what ought we to do?” Fetal viability, that is, the ability of the fetus to survive outside of its mother’s womb, has become the legal standard for evaluating the legality of abortions. LEGAL ASPECTS: COURT DECISIONS ON THE RIGHT TO AN ABORTION A case involving a law against contraception would have significant ramifications for the legality of abortion. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated a Constitutional right to privacy. Justice Douglas, in writing the majority opinion, cited the right of privacy among the “penumbras” of (or implied) rights afforded by the Bill of Rights. The decision and its appeals to the right of privacy were instrumental in the definitive abortion-rights court case, Roe v. Wade (1973). Roe v. Wade declared that a Texas law criminalizing abortion violated women’s Fourteenth Amendment rights (i.e., the state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law) to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Current legal and theological opponents of abortion contend that such Constitutional rights conflict with duties to protect unborn life, and such disagreements carry forward in the debates that occur within the Roe decision itself. In his dissenting opinion, Justice White cautioned that such a right enacted a moral cost: “The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries.” Despite such objections, the Court held that abortion was to be protected as an individual’s right, but the Court also acknowledged that states could restrict this right based on fetal development, particularly in the second and third trimesters of such development. In the decades that followed, many legal challenges were launched, and commentators speculated that the Court might overturn Roe v. Wade. However, several cases affirmed the decision; in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), for example, the Court struck down a Pennsylvania law that required spousal notification prior to obtaining an abortion, because it unconstitutionally created an undue burden on women getting access to abortions. The Court did uphold the requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and a 24-hour waiting period. In sum, the relevant court cases promote autonomy as the central value (as embraced by philosophers such as Judith Jarvis Thomson), though, in noting specific restrictions, these cases do not advocate absolute autonomy (Thomson 1971). To what extent, then, can federal and national law mandate

Abortion

certain provisions in relation to autonomous choices and practices of abortion? In reflecting on these questions, religious voices are prominent, not only out of the Court, but within it: with the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito Jr., the Supreme Court’s nine members now include five Catholics. The Catholic Church calls upon all Catholic officials to advocate on behalf of innocent life; do the Catholic beliefs of the Justice compel them to challenge the legal protections surrounding abortion rights? POLITICAL MECHANISMS: PARTIALBIRTH ABORTION BAN In terms of the most significant federal legislative action regarding abortion, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on November 5, 2003. The act, passed by both houses of the 108th Congress, differentiates partial-birth abortions from other types of abortions: “A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partialbirth abortion—an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant—is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited” (Section 2 (1)). The act refutes claims that these types of abortion could benefit a mother’s health (though Section 3 does exculpate physicians who perform such abortions to save a mother’s life); a fortiori, the act claims that these abortions pose serious risks to a woman’s health (e.g., Section 2(14)A identifies numerous health complications, including increased risk of cervical incompetence, uterine rupture, and secondary hemorrhaging). Congress points to a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child: “A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a person under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a person. Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child” (Section 2(14)H). Consistent with this interest, the act concludes with a punitive section that criminalizes partial-birth abortions and imposes fines and incarceration of up to two years (Section 3), as well as findings from the Senate that reiterate that Roe v. Wade “was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right . . . and such decision should not be overturned” (Section 4). Another relevant issue—one that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not consider—surrounds questions of the origins of life and the designation of personhood. In April, 2007, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the partial birth abortion ban does not violate a woman’s right to an abortion. Theologians such as Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and Chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), voiced support for the court’s decision. Other religious groups worried that the decision begins to encroach on the rights of women.

| 7

8

| Abortion

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: FDA APPROVAL OF PLAN B AND WAL-MART On August 24, 2006, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Plan B, a contraceptive drug containing the female hormone progestin, as an over-the-counter (i.e., nonprescription) option for women age 18 or older. For those women age 17 and under, Plan B is available only by means of a prescription. Plan B is called the “morning after pill” because it is taken within 72 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse. Although it is not equivalent to the abortion pill RU-486, Plan B is controversial because as an emergency contraceptive it can blur the lines between contraceptive devices and abortive practices. The demarcation of these lines, as mentioned above, depends on interpretation of the origins of individual life and the moral status of the embryo. Those who argue that it constitutes an abortive practice contend that the pills can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus; some believe that the White House and President George W. Bush sought to block Plan B’s entrance into the market on grounds that it destroys innocent life. The FDA’s decision occurred only after intense debate within its own administration, and among political action groups and lobbyists. The potentially widespread use of Plan B was enhanced when Wal-mart, the world’s largest retailer and an advocate of “family values,” indicated on August 25, 2006, that it would carry the Plan B drug for over-the-counter sale by the end of the year. Wal-mart received critical scrutiny when it initially considered selling the drug, but it consented to the sales when the FDA made its determination. Debates continue to emerge regarding the impact of future Plan B availability: will it provide an excuse for irresponsible behavior and destroy innocent life, or will it promote responsible, planned parenthood? An interesting dimension also emerges when pharmacists have refused to dispense the Plan B drug on ethical and religious grounds. Wal-Mart suspended one such pharmacist, Ethan Vandersand, but a U.S. district court in August, 2007, reversed Wal-Mart’s attempt to block the pharmacist’s lawsuit. CVS pharmacy recognizes the religious beliefs of a pharmacist as a legitimate ground for not dispensing such drugs.

SOCIAL FACTORS AND ABORTIONS: CAUSES AND EFFECTS Do economic disparities in the economic system of the United States create the conditions for the possibility of abortions? Does the number of abortions in the United States impact other facets of society? Some argue that the causes and effects of abortion are directly correlated to broader social trends. Legal theorist John J. Donohue III, and economist Steven Levitt, argue that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to crime reductions since the Roe v. Wade decision, accounting for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime. Their controversial thesis has earned accusations of “classism” and “racism” because it holds that abortions occur most frequently among women or families that are least able to provide the economic resources for a stable, nurturing home environment. This view would argue that the absence of a stable, nurturing home is considered one precondition for determining risk of engagement in criminal behavior.

Abortion

Others argue that social and economic variables are the causes of abortion, as illustrated by cross-cultural comparisons. Western European countries have low rates of abortion, the argument states, because they offer comprehensive social and health care safety nets (provided by the government and related social services) that mitigate extreme economic and social hardships. Widespread availability of contraceptive devices, encouraged by the more secular character of these European countries, also contributes to these lower rates of abortion. Additionally, some European countries also provide access to an abortive pill, RU486 (or Mifegyne). The pill is considered effective because it is taken in the early stages of pregnancy as a safer alternative to surgical techniques. Though their perspectives vary on the efficacy of Mifegyne, governments in Western Europe restrict the legal use of this pill to either the first seven or first nine weeks of embryonic development. Studies indicate that abortion rates have not risen since the legalization of Mifegyne in countries such as France, Germany, Sweden, and Great Britain. Some religious voices have opposed RU-486; Catholic officials in Bavaria, for example, objected to the distribution of the pill (even if German law requires proof of counseling prior to abortions). SUMMARY It is clear that the abortion debate is not a matter of simple arguments—but involves detailed consideration of often difficult moral and medical issues. Not only do religious traditions differ in their definition of the beginning of life, or taking life, it is also difficult to isolate the sole causes or effects of abortion, and, consequently, the terms of the debate need to be clarified and elaborated upon in more detail as theologians, philosophers, politicians, legal theorists, economists, and ordinary citizens struggle to discern the morality and legality of abortion. See also Birth Control and Family Planning. Further Reading: Bachiochi, Erika, ed. The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion. Preface by Jean Bethke Elshtain. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2004; Cahill, Lisa Sowle. Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996; Cahill, Lisa Sowle. Theological Bioethics: Participation, Justice, Change. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005; Donohue, James J., III, and Steven D. Levitt. “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, no. 2 (2001): 379–420; First Things 43 (May 1994): 15–22; Grisez, Germain. Abortion: The Myth, the Realities, and the Arguments. New York: Corpus Books, 1970; Harte, Colin. Changing Unjust Laws Justly: Pro-Life Solidarity with “the Last and Least.” Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005; Hauerwas, Stanley. Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981; Haussman, Melissa. Abortion Politics in North America. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005; Maguire, Daniel C. Sacred Rights: The Case for Contraception and Abortion in World Religions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; Noonan, John T., Jr. The Morality of Abortion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970; Pope John Paul II. “Evangelium Vitae.” 1995. Available at: http://www.vatican. va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evange lium-vitae_en.html; Rudy, Kathy. Beyond Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Moral Diversity in the Abortion Debate. Boston: Beacon Press, 1996; Shrage, Laurie. Abortion and Social

| 9

10

| Addiction and Recovery Responsibility: Depolarizing the Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003; Steffen, Lloyd. Abortion: A Reader. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1996; Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971): 47–66; Tribe, Lawrence H. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: Norton, 1990.

Jonathan Rothchild ADDICTION AND RECOVERY In the United States, there have been major changes in the attitudes of the public toward the problems of smoking, drug, and alcohol addiction. In 2001, a Pew Foundation poll found that 52 percent of Americans believed that drug use should be treated as a disease, while only 35 percent believed that it should be treated as a crime. How are such attitudes expressed in religious contexts? Is addiction a matter of “suffering a disease” or “committing a sin”? The different attitudes would lead to radically different suggestions about social responses to addiction issues in this country. The use and abuse of different substances are certainly evaluated quite differently in the public mind. For example, smoking is generally thought of as an entirely negative habit—portrayed as a failure of will, while alcohol is considered negative only in cases of abuse (the majority of Americans, from a University of Minnesota poll, favor controls over Alcohol distribution, but not a ban), and attitudes toward drug use depends entirely on the substance in question—from mild irritation with marijuana (nearly 50 percent of Americans favor legalizing medical use of marijuana, for example) to widespread condemnation of the nonmedical use of opiates and other drugs. Alcohol and alcoholism are topics that reveal the changing attitudes toward the use of alcohol, and the relationship and controversies between many of these ideas about alcoholism and religious communities in the United States. The recovery industry (treatment centers, seminars, books, and plans), represented by dozens of different approaches to addiction treatments, has often interacted with religious organizations, but often also finds itself in conflict with what it sees as negative and unhelpful religious attitudes toward addiction. AMERICAN ADDICTION: A BRIEF HISTORY OF ATTITUDES From the period beginning with the Civil War and into the era of World War II, the general public attitude toward drug and alcohol abuse was that such practices represented individual failures on the part of the addict, and the failures ought to be treated as character flaws, crimes, and by the religious community, as “sin.” These attitudes were also often expressed in negative language about “drunks” and other pejorative terms. Social and religious pressures against the use of alcohol in the United States began to build with the founding of movements such as Frances Willard’s Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU, founded in 1873), which defined alcoholism as a family issue, and drew on a massive mobilization of women who

Addiction and Recovery

treated alcoholism as a threat to family and home life. In 1895, the Anti-Saloon League was also founded, with considerable support from industrialists Henry Ford and Pierre DuPont. Unfortunately, some of these popular movements, however, also drew on widespread anti-immigration sentiments, as certain groups were quite unfairly associated with problem drinking. These social pressures eventually led to the legal banning of all alcohol in the United States during Prohibition (1920–1933). Although it is common today to portray this social experiment in American history as a dismal failure, there were arguably sharp reductions in alcohol consumption. On the other hand, it is also quite true that Prohibition gave rise to a massive black market in alcoholism, and Chicago became one of the national “centers” of the illegal alcohol trade. During the so-called Roaring Twenties, there were private (and illegal) drinking clubs that earned massive amounts of money for organized crime. Public pressure, and widely noted ambivalence about enforcement of the law led to President Roosevelt finally proclaiming an end to the Prohibition experiment in 1933. The widely held public perception was that the overzealous religious attitudes were largely responsible for the movement to ban alcohol in American society, and this led to a certain cynicism about religious “interference” with political issues as an attempt to “legislate morality.” THE RISE OF THE “ALCOHOLISM AS DISEASE” ATTITUDE The idea that alcohol dependency can be spoken of as a “disease” has its roots in America in the eighteenth century, when Benjamin Rush wrote An Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Body and Mind in 1784. However, the notion of treating alcoholism and other dependencies as “disease” rather than a “moral or spiritual failure” (e.g., sin), did not catch on until after the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous in 1935, and its growing success in helping people recover from alcohol abuse. Theologian and historian Linda Mercandante notes, for example, that it was in 1935 that the American Medical Association (AMA) said that alcoholics were valid patients, and in 1952, the World Health Organization promoted treatment for alcoholism (Mercandante 1996, 100). More significantly, in 1956, the AMA referred to alcoholism as a “disease,” but it was in the 1970s that the public was widely in agreement in using this kind of language. One of the main events in public consciousness of addiction was First Lady Betty Ford’s candid revelations about her own alcohol and prescription drug abuse that led to her seeking treatment in the late 1970s and early 1980s. One of the most important attitude changes on alcoholism has come about based on the notion that alcoholism ought to be considered a disease that people struggle with. This idea involved far less social (and even religious) stigma on the individual alcoholic. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is most famous for its Twelve Step program. Each participant agrees to try to abide by, and act upon, these 12 steps in their lives, as well as meet regularly with fellow members to encourage one another. Although AA is notably only a mildly religious movement that is said to be compatible with a wide variety of spiritual traditions, it

| 11

12

| Addiction and Recovery

notably draws on ideas most often encountered in Christian religious thought. The Twelve Steps are as follows:

the twelve steps of alcoholics anonymous 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable. 2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. 4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. 10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. 11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. 12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs. It is clear that this approach, which has proven effective for literally millions of people since 1935, has also hatched a virtual industry of Twelve Step approaches to all kinds of “addictions” and obsessive behaviors—there are now groups for sexual addictions, addictions to shopping, smoking, eating, and even overworking. Furthermore, it is clear that some believe that the Twelve Step process may even be a form of spirituality that not only supplements standard religious practices in Christian Churches or Jewish Synagogues, but actually replaces them. Some members of AA and other similar groups speak of their association with the recovery group as their “church.” This virtual transformation in some attitudes toward addiction as disease, however, had raised interesting controversies when brought into dialogue with the equally strong public religious attitudes in the United States. The AA approach, which states that a person is powerless over alcohol, is actually a notion that is arguably contrary to major Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theological teachings about the reality, and problem, of human sin. Many religions refer to the failure to act in a morally positive manner as sin—a moral failing that ought to be confessed, and changed. But an individual is not normally held responsible for an illness. Sin on the other hand, means that one ought to feel a moral and

Addiction and Recovery

spiritual guilt about wrong behavior, which hopefully leads one to change that behavior. Furthermore, one of the very central ideas of Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theology is that sin can be overcome by the help of God—it is not that sin is all powerful, rather we have recourse to the power of God who can strengthen our will and resolve. In fact, part of the Twelve Step program is the idea that an act toward recovery can be taken—you are not lost to alcoholism unless you willfully refuse at least the step of acknowledging the need to change. Often, in descriptions of recovery, this is referred to as hitting bottom—the moment you realize that you must do something to stop your own destruction. In a collection of such narratives written by celebrities who have struggled with alcoholism, comedian Richard Lewis spoke about this need to make a personal commitment: I’ve been to enough funerals in the last decade of people who I’d once held by their lapels, begging them to stay the course yet never ever seeing the light of belief illuminate their eyes. It was clear to me, even in very early recovery, that the only people who ultimately saved themselves and seriously entered recovery were those who not “just maybe” knew that they needed it, but also wanted it. I’ve discovered that those who tried to get sober for anyone other than themselves usually had a tough go at it or failed completely. It takes a lot of courage—and faith. I had that darkness of denial and disbelief in my own eyes up through that night when I looked in the mirror at my house and didn’t even recognize myself. (R. Lewis, in Stromberg and Merrill 2005, 226) Despite the widely noted and applauded success of the Twelve Step approach, some religious scholars have raised concerns. Mercandante points out that a primary focus on addiction as personal disease over which the individual has minimal control, is that it can lead to a view that not only avoids the stigma of being a sinner, and thus a failure (an attitude even most religious leaders would not advocate in those stark terms), but illness language avoids the harder issues of the often tragic results of alcoholism on others (Mercandante 1996). Theologians speak of social sins as well as personal sin—meaning that immoral behavior has wider consequences that may mean that social regulations and laws ought to be considered to end a threat to wider society—not merely to individuals in the privacy of their own self-destruction. Organizations like MADD (Mothers against Drunk Driving), for example, are more assertive about the need to legally control alcohol abuse, and may well be impatient with attitudes that can too easily dismiss the tragedy of alcoholism as “disease.” The idea of disease is that alcoholics have a permanent condition, and they will never be “normal.” Their disease requires constant monitoring. Part of the success of Alcoholics Anonymous is precisely this constant monitoring by attending meetings on a regular basis, and consulting and calling in with your partner in the organization who tries to help you through difficult times of temptation to drink. However, a Twelve Step approach to all of life can create a paranoia about the world around you—believing that anything and everything is a potentially predatory addiction behavior—and life consists of nothing but working hard on individual, personal purity. As Mercandante has suggested: “The result is an

| 13

14

| Addiction and Recovery

often intense preoccupation with personal behaviour akin to a pursuit for ritual purity” (Mercandante 1996, 107). Finally, the different attitudes can result in strong political and social advocacy for different national and legislative approaches. A disease model strongly suggests public investment in recovery programs, medical treatment facilities, and caregiving. A moral failure, or “sin” model, would tend to go with advocating at least an equal public emphasis on imprisonment and/or punishment of those whose behavior is socially destructive and is a danger to society. Those who advocate a stronger punitive line may well view a “treatment of disease” model as too soft on criminal behavior. Those who advocate the disease emphasis, however, view more punitive attitudes as doing nothing to actually prevent or reduce addiction, but simply trying to punish it out of existence. There are valid observations, obviously, on both sides of such a debate. DISEASE AND ECONOMIC MOTIVES Mercandante also notes that there can be economic reasons for perpetuating such a view of life, because it is certainly true that “a lucrative industry has emerged” (Mercandante 1996, 107). Historians of addiction treatment in the United States point out that there is a pernicious influence of economic motives that also enters into the debate. In short—alcohol and other addiction substances like tobacco, make a considerable amount of money for the producers of these consumer items. Social attacks on alcoholism that define the problem as sin and failure of moral character, tend to label the products themselves as sinful temptations to be avoided. But if problems of addiction are shifted to the individual—the idea that some people cannot handle drinking, but others can— then the problem is shifted away from the products, and the pressure is off the companies that actually produce consumer versions of these substances. For example, if alcoholism is considered a disease rather than an inevitably destructive substance in any form, then it becomes acceptable to drink moderately, but only unacceptable in those circumstances when it is abused. Cigarettes, for example, are now seen quite differently. In a large part of the public sector, cigarette use is condemned at all levels, and the banning of cigarette smoking in most public buildings, many restaurants in many states, and many private buildings, is indication of the wide public attitude against any form of smoking, whether addictive or moderate. It is in the interests of the alcohol industry to make certain that alcoholic beverages avoid the stigma of tobacco, and one way to do this, arguably, is to emphasize the problems of alcoholism, and not of alcohol itself. Critics have not only pointed to the economic motives served by a removal of a stigma that might lend more serious pressure to legislate against alcohol use, they have also pointed out that there is a class-oriented or even elitist attitude in ideas about alcohol abuse among certain sectors of society. For example, although the language of disease removes much of the tone of moral failure (or even sin) and the social stigma associated with an individual failure of moral resolve, this tended to be reserved to higher social classes where elites were considered good people with problems, rather than the much more inflammatory language used

Addiction and Recovery

to speak of the poor who are called drunks (Tracy and Acker 2004, 24). Attitudes toward drunks would obviously differ from attitudes toward the sick, and thus the very words used can suggest quite different policies and attitudes. Today, the religious communities are divided between treating alcoholism and drug addiction as a disease which involves mostly an attitude of support, encouragement, and counseling, and those who still insist that alcoholism and drug addiction are sins, and that sins should be condemned, avoided, and even lead society to limit activity seen as immoral through legislation of various kinds. Most religious leaders would distance themselves from a bitter condemnation of alcoholics, but are uncomfortable with dropping the idea of sin altogether. Even if the sinner is (at least in theory) treated with human respect (e.g., “love the sinner, hate the sin”), there are social implications to the reality of sinful and/or immoral behavior. If the language of immorality, injustice, and sin is used, then stronger pressures would arise to control the worst of the consequences of these behaviors for wider society. In the case of tobacco, for example, the growing negative attitudes resulted in greater legal limitations of the use of tobacco, especially in public places. So, negative attitudes are often at odds with sympathetic attitudes—because they suggest different courses of action (e.g., legislation, punishment, and limitation, as opposed to therapy, treatment, and institutional programs of recovery). Most religious leaders, of course, would say that there are elements of both attitudes that need to be a part of modern religious analysis of addictive behavior. It is both an illness and a sin. In fact, in her analysis of the mixing of recovery ideas with theological and religious ideas, Mercandante summarizes various views as follows: At least four often conflicting elements are combined in U.S. beliefs regarding alcoholism. First, the dispositional disease model is firmly held. Here, alcoholics are understood to bear no responsibility at all. They are seen as incapable of rational decision making, thus needing social intervention and coercion. Opposite that is the still influential moral-volitional model. This stresses personal choice and presents alcoholics as willfully aberrant. A personality model exists alongside these. It claims alcoholics ‘have a consistent and abnormal psychology’. And finally there is the AA model. It has elements of the moral, the medical, and the psychological, yet it primarily presents the problem as “a reflection of a human need—gone wrong—for spiritual life and growth. (Mercandante 1996, 103) RELIGION AND TWELVE STEPS: AN UNEASY COOPERATION? What, then, is the proper attitude of religious organizations toward addiction issues? Many churches provide space for AA and other recovery organizations as a part of their general commitment to service toward the rest of society. But some churches have embraced the Twelve Step process, and the disease concept of addictions entirely, almost replacing their own religious moral/ethical

| 15

16

| Addiction and Recovery

teachings about human responsibility for behavior. Wider social attitudes toward Christians who speak mostly about addiction as sin, for example, tend to be negative, so many churches have ceased speaking of sin altogether, replacing it with so-called negative or destructive behaviors—psychological or medical language that seems more acceptable to wider society. However, such diseasemodel discussions have an inherent weakness in the religious context—disease suggests passive suffering, not responsible action. But religious teachers would say that if you are sinning, that means you should stop sinning. It suggests responsibility and ability to act. No one must sin—by definition it is a choice. And this, finally, is an important point for religious leaders. Some theologians have started to suspect that a disease-only approach to addiction is virtually the same thing as a biologically determinist view—reducing human beings to biological machines with little choice who are driven by instincts that they cannot change, rather than persons who can make choices—whether bad or good. Theologians would argue that if you are not responsible for your actions, then you are not a free person. The basic notion of sin in the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic traditions is that sin is a matter of choosing to do the wrong thing, not simply suffering from a disease. While it is true that theologians speak of how sin can become easier and lead to destructive patterns of behavior, if sin is simply a matter of disease, then human persons can be no longer responsible for their own conduct—and they are reduced to machines. To be a sinner means that you are responsible, and that you have choices. To suffer from a disease, on the other hand, does not empower the individual to act because there is nothing they can do to change. Christianity, for example, speaks of the ability to become a “new person” in the power of faith. The Twelve Step process, on the other hand, teaches that you will never not be an alcoholic—you will always live with it. In fact, say religious teachers, belief in sin is more respectful of human beings, but it insists that individual people are responsible for choices in their lives, and are thus to be held accountable for those choices. It is not a matter of being biologically programmed, with no choices. For some, recovery from addiction is made easier by acknowledging that they are not in control of their disease. But for many modern theologians, who may well support the Twelve Step–type addiction recovery programs as positive for specific issues of addiction, such approaches ought not to replace Christian theologies of sin and responsibility on all issues. See also Clergy House Scandal in America; Health Reform Movements; Universal Health Care. Further Reading: Alcoholics Anonymous. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions. Hazelden: Center City, 2002. Available at: http://www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/en_information_ aa.cfm?PageID = 17&SubPage = 68; Black, Claudia. It Will Never Happen to Me: Growing Up with Addiction as Youngsters, Adolescents, Adults. Center City: Hazelden, 2002; Cherry, Andrew, Mary E. Dillon, and Douglas Rugh. Substance Abuse: A Global View. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002; Efran, Jay S., and David Gregson. The Tao of Sobriety. New York: Thomas Dunne, 2002; Hickman, Timothy, “The Double Meaning of Addiction: Habitual Narcotic Use and the Logic of Professionalizing Medical Authority in the United States, 1900–1920.” In Altering American Consciousness, ed. Sarah Tracy and Caroline Jean Acker. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004: 182–202; Lawson, Gary

AIDS W., Ann W. Lawson, and P. Clayton Rivers. Essentials of Chemical Dependency Counseling, 3rd ed. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen, 2001; Mancall, Peter, “‘I Was Addicted to Drinking Rum’: Four Centuries of Alcohol Consumption in Indian Country.” In Altering American Consciousness, eds. Sarah Tracy and Caroline Jean Acker, 91–107. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004; Mercandante, Linda A. Victims and Sinners: Spiritual Roots of Addiction and Recovery. Louisville: Westminster, 1996; Speaker, Susan L. “Demons for the Twentieth Century: The Rhetoric of Drug Reform, 1920–1940.” In Altering American Consciousness, eds. Sarah Tracy and Caroline Jean Acker, 203–224. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004; Stromberg, Gary, and Jane Merrill. The Harder They Fall: Celebrities Tell Their Real-Life Stories of Addiction and Recovery. Center City, MN: Hazelden, 2005; Tracy, Sarah W., and Caroline Jean Acker, eds. Altering American Consciousness: The History of Alcohol and Drug Use in the United States, 1800–2000. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004; White, William L. “The Lessons of Language: Historical Perspectives on the Rhetoric of Addiction.” In Altering American Consciousness, eds. Sarah Tracy and Caroline Jean Acker, 33–60. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004.

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

AIDS Because AIDS is still often associated with the homosexual community, or with the abuse of illegal drugs, many conservative religious leaders considered it a “punishment” for sin. Other religious leaders, however, call for compassion for the sick in the tradition of religious concern for others. Is AIDS a unique case for religious morality? WHAT IS AIDS? AIDS, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), which is spread through the exchange of HIV infected bodily fluids. The most common causes of HIV transmission are unprotected sexual intercourse with an infected partner and using non-sterile needles to inject drugs. The best means of protection against infection during sexual intercourse is to use a condom. Public health experts argue that the best way to prevent the spread of AIDS is to educate the public about how it is spread, to advocate for condom use during sexual intercourse, to make condoms easily available, and to provide clean needles to intravenous drug users through needle exchange programs. These prevention measures have been shown to be effective, yet within religious communities they are controversial. Some religious leaders object that they legitimize and encourage immoral behavior; others insist that religious values obligate people of faith to promote, and even participate in providing proven and effective ways to prevent the spread of AIDS. A BRIEF HISTORY OF AIDS AIDS emerged in the United States in the early 1980s, initially among homosexual men and then among injecting drug users. For a short time, this mysterious

| 17

18

| AIDS

HIV TESTING CONTROVERSY Knowing one’s HIV status is essential to preventing the spread of AIDS, yet HIV testing was initially controversial. In the Western hemisphere, homosexual men were the first to be hardest hit by the disease; thus the gay community was at the forefront of educating people about AIDS and advocating for safer sexual behavior to prevent the spread of the disease. Yet the gay community was suspicious of widespread HIV testing because of concern about how results from such testing would be used. Homosexuals were subjected to discrimination before the emergence of AIDS; the spread of the disease only fueled already existing prejudices and hostility. Furthermore, early on there was widespread ignorance about how HIV is transmitted, and treatments for AIDS did not exist. As a result, there was a great deal of fear about AIDS, and those suffering from the disease faced stigmatization, isolation, and worse. Advocates for AIDS patients feared that discriminatory behavior would increase if HIV testing were widespread and test results became public information. When HIV testing was established, therefore, it was on a voluntary basis, and unlike as with other communicable diseases, the test results were confidential; only the person who was tested had the right to know the results of the test, and it was up to that person to inform others of his or her HIV status. Although some are now questioning the continued need for it, confidential and voluntary testing remains the policy in the United States and many other countries.

new disease was thought to be a “gay” disease; one of the earliest names given to it was GRID, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Within two years of its first appearance in the United States, however, non-drug using women and children also were diagnosed with the illness, and the name AIDS was created. In Africa, medical personnel had been aware of a “wasting disease” in the heterosexual population since the 1970s, but it wasn’t until 1984 that Western scientists became aware that AIDS was widespread in Africa. In that year, as well, scientists discovered that the cause of the disease was a virus that they eventually named HIV. Once AIDS was known to be an infectious disease that is transmitted through the exchange of blood and other bodily fluids, effective preventive measures could be identified and promoted. Chief among these were safer sexual behavior, particularly avoiding promiscuity and using condoms during sexual intercourse. The world’s first needle exchange program for injecting drug users was set up in Holland in 1984. In 1985 a test to screen blood for HIV was licensed. Azidothymidine (AZT) was approved as the first drug for treating AIDS in 1987, but only in 1996 were combination antiretroviral drug treatments against HIV found to be effective. RELIGIOUS RESPONSES TO AIDS Among religious groups, as among other segments of society, responses to AIDS have varied. Because homosexual men and intravenous drug users were the first to be hit hardest by the disease, and because HIV infection is primarily sexually transmitted, some religious people believed AIDS to be God’s

AIDS

punishment for what they judged to be immoral behavior. Yet from the start, other religious people have insisted that blaming the victims of HIV/AIDS for their disease is not an acceptable religious response, and many have been motivated by their religious convictions to reach out with compassion to people with HIV/AIDS. All the world’s major religions include teachings that call their adherents to care for the most vulnerable members of society. In Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama insist that believers must help those in need, and work to alleviate injustice and suffering. One of the five pillars of Islam is concern for, and alms-giving to the needy. In Judaism, the prophets continually called the Hebrew people to remember that they were once foreigners and slaves in Egypt. Knowing what it is like to be marginalized and abused, therefore, the prophets insist that the Jewish community must show particular concern for the marginalized and suffering in their midst. In line with the Jewish prophets, Jesus also called his followers to reach out to those on the margins of society. According to the Christian New Testament, when Christians feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and imprisoned, they are, in fact, doing all these things for Christ (Matt 25: 31–46). As a consequence of such religious teachings, from the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, religious institutions and individuals have been among those providing services to help people afflicted with the disease, as well as their families. Today, there are organizations affiliated with every major religious tradition whose mission is to help people affected by HIV/AIDS. They include, to name just a few, the Positive Muslims support group for Muslims with HIV/AIDS; the Sangha Metta Project, which prepares Buddhist nuns and monks to work with those affected by the disease; the International Jewish AIDS Network; the Catholic Relief Services; and the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance. Yet in 2004, religious leaders meeting at the 15th International AIDS conference in Bangkok, Thailand, agreed that religious communities have not done enough in the fight against HIV/AIDS. They acknowledged that often their response to the AIDS epidemic, and to those infected with HIV, has been marked by prejudice, fear, and judgment. These leaders signed a “Statement of Commitment,” pledging to work against the root causes of the spread of AIDS in the various regions of the world. Furthermore, they committed themselves to an agenda of actions to ensure “access for all” to accurate information about how to protect oneself against infection with the HIV virus; to effective medical care and treatment for those who are infected; and to acceptance and full inclusion in the community of those with HIV/AIDS. While religious leaders agree about their obligation to help those suffering from HIV/AIDS, and to work against the spread of the disease, they are not always in agreement about the best means of preventing HIV infection. RELIGIOUS RESPONSES TO AIDS PREVENTION One of the most widespread approaches to AIDS prevention is known by the acronym ABC: Abstinence from sex; Being faithful to one’s partner; and using Condoms during sexual intercourse. Needle exchange programs that allow drug

| 19

20

| AIDS

abusers to turn in their used injections’ needles in order to receive sterilized ones also have been shown to be effective in preventing the spread of HIV. Yet there are those who argue that needle exchange programs legitimate the use of illegal intravenous drugs and thus promote drug addiction. Furthermore, they insist that advocating the use of condoms, and making them easily available, encourages immoral sexual behavior. Most religious traditions hold that sexual intercourse is morally acceptable only between a man and woman who are married. To make condoms widely and easily available, and to suggest that using a condom will protect sexual partners against contracting AIDS, some religious leaders argue, encourages sexual promiscuity and marital infidelity. Moreover, they insist that it is dishonest to suggest that using a condom during sexual intercourse will protect the partners from contracting AIDS, since condoms may tear or they may be used incorrectly. Therefore, the only sure way to prevent being infected with the HIV virus is to abstain from sexual intercourse before marriage, and to remain faithful to one’s spouse after marriage. According to this view, AIDS prevention programs ought solely to focus on promoting sexual abstinence before marriage, and fidelity within marriage. Against this, other people of faith argue that moral conviction and religious belief do not protect populations from HIV infection. They point out that even if religious teaching forbids extramarital sex and illicit drug use, this is not a view held by everyone. Furthermore, even religious adherents who acknowledge a particular teaching may not agree with or live by it. So that those who engage in risky behaviors know how to protect themselves, it is essential, and even religiously mandated, that all AIDS prevention programs provide information about the use of condoms during sexual intercourse, and the dangers of needle sharing. Proponents of this position base their argument on the high value their faith tradition places on human life. Both Judaism and Christianity teach that human beings are created in the image of God and that human life is sacred. Similarly, Islam holds that life is a gift from Allah. From the perspective of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, therefore, protecting life and caring for the health of one’s body are religious obligations. Since teaching about the proper use of condoms, and making condoms and clean needles easily accessible are the most effective means of protecting the health and lives of those who engage in risky sexual behavior or use illegal injectable drugs, these means ought to be included in all AIDS prevention programs. RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON CONDOM USE WITHIN MARRIAGE Some religious denominations, most notably the Roman Catholic Church (within Christianity), but also some Muslim and Jewish groups, teach that it is immoral to use condoms, even within marriage, as a means of contraception. The question arises whether this means that it is also immoral to use a condom during sexual intercourse within marriage if the intention is not to avoid pregnancy, but rather to avoid contracting HIV/AIDS. This might be necessary

AIDS

| 21

because one of the marriage partners is known to be infected with HIV, or because the HIV status of one or both spouses is unknown. One interpretation of the Roman Catholic prohibitions against condom use is that it is never acceptable to use a condom, even within marriage, and even if one of the spouses is known to be HIV positive. In the latter case, to protect the uninfected spouse the married couple must refrain from having sex. Yet Catholic moral theologians and even members of the Roman curia, the central administration of the Roman Catholic Church, have supported a more tolerant attitude toward the use of condoms in order to slow the spread of AIDS. The Catholic Church’s insistence that condom use is morally unacceptable, is based on its teaching that sexual intercourse serves two purposes within marriage. One is the creation of new life; the other is strengthening the love and unity of the spouses. These two purposes of the sexual act may never be separated, according to Catholic teaching, because to do so undermines the dignity of the sexual act and, therefore, of the two people engaging in it. An action that diminishes the dignity of human beings is evil and, according to Catholic teaching, one cannot engage in one evil (using condoms) in order to prevent another (HIV infection). Ultimately, the only effective way to end the scourge of AIDS, according to this teaching, is to act in accordance with moral values that build up the dignity of all human beings. AIDS TREATMENT AND THE COST OF DRUGS In 1987 AZT was the first drug to be approved for treating AIDS. Yet even with the discovery that AZT could slow the development of HIV infection into full-blown AIDS, being diagnosed as HIV positive was essentially a death sentence, since the mortality rate for AIDS patients was near 100 percent. Then, in 1996, combination antiretroviral treatments (sometimes referred to as “drug cocktails”) were found to be highly effective against HIV. Since then, while there is still no cure for AIDS, for those who can afford the new antiretroviral treatments, HIV infection has become a chronic condition rather than a fatal disease. Combination drug treatments have significantly increased the life expectancy of patients infected with HIV. Yet these new treatments are very expensive, and therefore are not available to everyone who needs them. In 2006, particularly in developing areas of the world such as Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia where the AIDS pandemic is most severe, only about a quarter of those needing treatment for HIV were receiving it, according to statistics provided by the World Health Organization (WHO). Spokespeople for the pharmaceutical companies that sell these new antiretroviral treatments insist that the cost of the drugs is high because of the high cost of research that led to their development. Drug companies must charge as much as they do for the medications, according to their representatives, in order to recoup the cost of research and development, and make enough profit to allow continued research. Yet representatives of countries which desperately need the medications but cannot afford them accuse the pharmaceutical industry of price gouging at the expense of their citizens’ lives. Religious organizations, such as the Catholic Relief Services, have become actively involved in working to make antiretroviral treatments available to all those who need them.

22

| AIDS

While acknowledging the truth of the Catholic church’s position, others within the church argue out that even though condom use alone is not enough to prevent the spread of AIDS, it has been shown effectively to contain it. These Catholics support the church’s insistence that only the triumph of values that build up the dignity of all human beings will ultimately bring an end to the AIDS epidemic. At the same time, using the same logic by which the Catholic church teaches that under some circumstances it is permissible to kill another human being in self-defense, these Catholics argue that in the face of the AIDS epidemic, using a condom to prevent infection with HIV is also permissible. WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND AIDS Increasingly, everywhere in the world women and children are at risk of becoming infected with HIV, and many of these women are infected by their husbands. If an HIV infected woman becomes pregnant and has no access to antiretroviral medications, her child is at far greater risk of being HIV infected as well. In some parts of the world like sub-Saharan Africa, that have been worst affected by the AIDS epidemic, the greatest risk of becoming infected with HIV for some young women is getting married. Abstinence from sex before marriage, and marital fidelity, are not enough to protect them against AIDS. Part of the problem is a greater cultural tolerance of sexual promiscuity by men that needs to be addressed and changed. It is also the case that in almost all cultures, women are subordinated to men. Often, this is religiously justified, yet religious feminists point out that the subordination and mistreatment of women cannot be justified by religious teachings, if they are properly interpreted. For example, the book of Genesis, which both Jews and Christians accept as scripture, states that God created human beings, both male and female, in God’s image (Gen 1:27). Jewish and Christian feminist theologians argue, therefore, that God clearly intends women and men to have equal dignity. The Buddha taught that men and women are equal in their capacity to reach enlightenment. When asked, he said that whoever follows the path, man or woman, can reach the peace of Nirvana. Until women have equal status in their relationships with men, they and their children will be vulnerable to AIDS. One effective way to prevent AIDS would be if women would be able to control when, and with whom, they have sex. Some would argue that they must also have the ability to insist that their sexual partners use condoms. For this reason, religious leaders meeting at the 15th International AIDS Conference in Bangkok included gender inequality among the root causes of the AIDS epidemic, that they committed themselves, and their communities, to work to eliminate. PROMOTING SOCIAL JUSTICE TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF AIDS Systemic inequality and unequal wealth distribution are two further root causes of the HIV and AIDS pandemic, named in the Bangkok Statement of

Aliens

Commitment by Religious Leaders. The poorest regions of the world have been hardest hit by the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and everywhere in the world those most in danger of becoming infected with HIV are the socially and economically marginalized. In impoverished regions of the world, for example, men often travel far from their homes in order to find work to support their families. While they are separated from their wives for extended periods, they may become involved in extramarital sexual relationships. Some women may resort to such relationships as a means of supporting themselves and their offspring. Yet it places both the man and the woman at great risk for becoming infected with HIV. Moreover, they may then infect their spouses. When the adults die of AIDS, they may well leave behind orphaned children who now are at even greater risk for HIV/AIDS as they struggle to fend for themselves. People of faith increasingly recognize that the social and economic conditions that render some segments of the population unduly vulnerable to HIV infection must change if the AIDS epidemic is to be brought under control. Lack of education, poverty, war, and conditions of political instability all lead to an increased risk for HIV/AIDS. From a religious perspective, these conditions must be addressed as part of any effective AIDS prevention strategy, whether or not it includes the promotion of condom use, and easy access to condoms and clean needles. See also Health Reform Movement; Homosexuality; Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy. Further Reading: Cimperman, Maria. When God’s People Have HIV/AIDS: An Approach to Ethics. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005; Fuller, Jon D., and James F. Keenan. “Tolerant Signals: The Vatican’s New Insights on Condoms for H.I.V. Prevention.” America, September 23, 2000, 183–188; Maund, Lawrence. “A Buddhist Response to the HIV/Aids Crisis.” Buddha Dharma Education Association Web site. Available at: www.buddahnet.net/sangha-metta/buddhim-aid.html (accessed July, 2007); Safavi, Kyan. “AIDS and Islam.” The Yale Journal of Public Health 2, no. 1 (2005). Available at: www.yaleph.com/archive/vol2no1/article1.html (accessed July 2007); Schenker, Inon. “Judaism and HIV/AIDS: A view within the Conference.” Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance Web site. Available at: www.e-alliance.ch/iac_2004.jsp (accessed July, 2004); “Statement of Commitment By Religious Leaders.” UNAIDS Web site. Available at: www.unaids.org/KnowledgeCenter/HIVData (accessed July, 2004); “UNAIDS/WHO AIDS Epidemic Update: December 2006.” Available at: www.unaids.org/Knowledge Center/HIVData (accessed December, 2006).

Elisabeth Brinkmann ALIENS IS THERE EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE? Currently, proof of extraterrestrial life remains problematically hypothetical. Only scant scientific evidence, which is itself highly disputed, supports speculations of any kind of life other than on Earth. But how might the discovery of life elsewhere in our own Milky Way Galaxy, or beyond, change, or even disprove

| 23

24

| Aliens

our major religions’ belief systems, especially Christianity? Some advocates for extraterrestrial life say earthly religions cannot survive the discovery of life beyond our own world, especially if intelligent life is discovered. Others maintain we would at least have to radically alter our religious views if we encountered extraterrestrials (ETs). Still others, with a more literalist approach to interpreting the Bible, view the existence of extraterrestrial life as incompatible with scriptural revelation regarding God’s creation. Theologians considering these issues are seeking to come to grips with the probability that there is indeed life, and perhaps even intelligent life, beyond our own planet. They are concerned what impact such a discovery would have on our long-standing religious views: particularly within Christian traditions embracing the centrality of humankind in the cosmic scheme of things. ANCIENT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE SKY Modern Christians are familiar with the Hebrew Psalm from the Bible, which appears to presume someone looking up into the night sky long ago, and declaring: “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:1, New American Standard). Contrast this with a popular poster showing the Milky Way Galaxy, upon which the star-gazing psalmist reflected with such poetic wonder. Far to the edge of this band of stars and nebulae—100,000 light years across—there is an arrow drawn on the poster with a caption reading: “You Are Here.” Here, as it happens, is not even at the center of our vast disk-like Galaxy. Yet as far back as ancient astronomers, and until the early modern period, the Earth and our sun and planets were generally thought to be the center of the universe. For Christianity, this was an essential element of faith, as an accepted truth of a literal reading of Scripture. This geocentric view of the universe was accepted by Christianity well into the sixteenth century. The Church harshly resisted the challenge of a Copernican heliocentric cosmology confirmed by the invention of the telescope and Galileo’s observations, which only gradually prevailed. Despite the psalmist’s exaltation, and former geocentric beliefs, it is now clear, thanks to such contemporary instruments as the Earth-orbiting Hubble Space Telescope, and other ongoing technologies since the time of Galileo, that there are a staggering 125 billion (and counting) galaxies besides our own in the vastness of the universe. One can only imagine that such a figure would make the ancient psalmist’s poetic jaw drop at the mere contemplation of that far greater expanse. Are we alone then in all this immensity? Perhaps. But the odds, as well as much scientific speculation and ongoing search, would seem to favor aliens of some kind out there—wherever “out there” might be. We haven’t found them yet despite four decades of searching by such projects as SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence), and even a goodly number of unmanned space probes sent into our own solar system. But we’re still looking, and listening.

Aliens

HABITABLE PLANETS? Meanwhile, presumed habitable planets, or other astronomical bodies, keep turning up with increasing frequency: with maybe Earth-like conditions favorable to sustaining life. We know the basics for life flourishing here on Earth: solar energy neither too hot nor too cold (called the Goldilocks Zone) needed to sustain the chemistry of life, liquid water, and complex organic molecules— principally carbon—to build whatever organisms arise. Scientists talk about galactic habitable zones, such as our Milky Way Galaxy’s edge, as likely lifesuitable or life-opportunity places where potentially life could exist. Astrobiologists concern themselves with identifying such planetary habitability, yet, along with astronomers, the view remains cautious, with lots of speculation about feasibility—all awaiting solid evidence. Still, the four most basic elements vital for life here on Earth—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen—are abundant throughout the universe. In addition, a suitable habitable zone could be even larger given extreme environments that nevertheless might still sustain life. We know, for example, of such extreme environments as Antarctica’s permafrost or ocean floor volcanic vents that sustain various, unusual life forms. Life could exist, it is thought, on planets far more extreme in resources than our Earth. The universe might be teeming with life, even intelligent extraterrestrial life. Cosmic optimists insist that seriously huge numbers do indicate the possibility of a repeat of Earth’s biological evolution somewhere in the vast universe. There are billions of possible or potential Earth-similar planets, it is thought, so surely life cannot be that rare. “Almost beyond doubt,” the British astronomer David Darling (2001) observes, “life exists elsewhere.” So can our religious thinking—especially Christianity’s homocentric (that is, humancentered) theologies—accommodate such a discovery? If, in particular, sentient (intelligent) life exists, do we need to adjust our long-standing religious assumptions about our own uniqueness, and our biblically interpreted relationship to God? There would be little to upset most Earthly religious notions if the only aliens we discover turn out to be of the microbial or biologically non-intelligent kinds; not that evidence for any past or present non-Earth life forms would not engage philosophical-theological questions. Margaret Race, a biologist at the SETI Institute, observes: “If we find evidence for past or present Earth-like life on Mars, it would be extremely interesting scientifically, but less so theologically or philosophically because it could be explained as the result of dispersal between neighboring bodies. . . . If, however, Martian life were found to use a completely different biochemistry, it would be suggestive of an independent origin of life, with significant philosophical and theological implications” (Race 2007). Implications grow even more interesting if intelligent aliens show up with maybe their own religions and theological traditions; possibly far different from our “Terran” (Earth-based) ones, also likely far different from Christian traditions constructed out of sacred texts and traditional doctrines.

| 25

26

| Aliens

ASTROBIOLOGY AND THE SEARCH FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE Astrobiology, based on evolutionary assumptions, seeks to discover and understand life in the universe combining the scientific approaches of biology, astronomy, and planetary geology. Astrobiology addresses such fundamental questions as: “What is life? How did life originate on Earth? What kind of environments might support life?, and What might the search for life beyond Earth look like?” So far, potential life beyond Earth (at least in our own solar system) seems to hold out some possibilities on Mars, Europa (one of Jupiter’s four moons, slightly smaller than our own moon), and Saturn’s moon, Titan. Mars and Europa have subsurface possibilities of liquid water, necessary for life as we know it. Titan’s atmosphere is speculated to be identical to early Earth’s and the beginning of life here. Titan has liquid hydrocarbon lakes that might sustain at least microbial life. Nevertheless, astrobiology is mostly speculative science, extrapolating from a paucity of empirical evidence. However, reputable scientists pursue the field, and growing observational evidence supports many of their responses to the possible existence of life in the greater cosmos, even where such life need not be carbon-based or dependent on oxygen. The most well-known scientific search for extraterrestrial life is the SETI project, the cosmic search for transmitted radio signals which would confirm an advanced technology, and thus, intelligent life. But such long-shot radio astronomy has yet to detect a verifiable signal while scanning the distant skies with their listening radio telescopes. Still, British physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies believes a first contact of some kind, either as radio signals, or even perhaps of optical communication such as by laser, if and when it does happen, will have an impact on a historical par with Copernicus or Darwin (Davies, 2003). If we have genuine two-way contact, he believes our world would be changed in irrevocable ways. The Christian church has continually had to revise firmly held doctrine to take into account centuries of scientific discoveries, often after fighting a rear-guard action: 400 years after the burning of Giordano Bruno at the stake for asserting the idea of other inhabited worlds, the Catholic Church expressed “profound sorrow”; 375 years late, the Church finally admitted Galileo was right; and only recently has the Pope granted Darwinian evolution the Church’s official approval. Times, however, keep changing. For example, The Independent of London reported in May 2008, that the Pope’s astronomer insists alien life “would be part of God’s creation.” Journalist Peter Popham reported that: “The Vatican’s official newspaper has endorsed the possibility that the universe could contain intelligent life beyond Earth, while insisting that aliens would be ‘our brothers’ and ‘children of God’ as much as human beings are” (Popham 2008). It still seems likely, however, that intelligent extraterrestrials would undoubtedly call for even the most literal, as well as many liberal Christian biblical scholars, to revise their perceived unique focus of God’s singularly created and chosen Homo sapiens.

Aliens

| 27

RECOMMENDED SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS WITH RELIGIOUS THEMES Adams, Douglas. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. New York: Ballantine Books, 1980. Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. New York: Fawcett Crest, 1985. Blish, James. A Case of Conscience. New York: Del Rey Books, 2000[1959]. Butler, Octavia. Parable of the Sower. New York: Aspect Books, 1993. Card, Orson Scott. Ender’s Game. New York: Tor Books, 1991. Compton, D. G. The Missionaries. New York: Ace Books, 1972. Dick, Philip K. Valis. New York: Vintage, 1991[1981]. Forward, Robert L. Dragon’s Egg. New York: Del Ray Books, 1980. Gloss, Molly. The dazzle of day. New York: Tor books, 1997. Herbert, Frank. Dune. New York: Ace Books, 2005[1965]. Hoban, Russell. Riddley Walker. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998. LeGuin, Ursula K. The Telling. New York: Ace Books, 2001. Lewis, C. S. Out of the Silent Planet. New York: Scribner, 2003[1938]. Mieville, China. Perdido Street Station. New York: Ballantine Books, 2001. Miller, Walter M. A Canticle for Leibowitz. New York: Bantam Books, 1959. Russell, Mary Doria. The Sparrow. New York: Ballantine Books, 1996. Slonczewski, Joan. A Door Into Ocean. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.

One of the most promising prospects for astrobiology and extraterrestrial life is recent and ongoing discoveries since 1996 of extrasolar planets: those beyond our solar system, but which reside near suns within the habitable zone of our own Earth-sun relationship. Assumed plausible since the time of Newton, extrasolar planets now appear numerous enough to suggest life might well be supported in some of these Earth-like systems. Yet many critics remain skeptical, if only because our present technology is unable to confirm tantalizing speculation. SCIENCE FICTION, ALIENS, AND RELIGION Although the concerns of religion have been typically rebuffed or set aside without due consideration by science—this is often not the case with science fiction. Indeed, modern science fiction frequently addresses matters engaged by theology and philosophy, in part perhaps because science has often abandoned them. Astronomer and historian of science Steven J. Dick, seeking to define a new “cosmotheology,” speaks of the contribution of science fiction to studying the theological implications of cosmic evolution and the implications of extraterrestrial life: “the best of it is a source of original thought that should not be ignored” (Dick 2000). Dick goes on to conclude that such stories “force us to consider our place in the universe; they make us wonder whether the universe is full of good, as in E.T., or evil, as in Alien. And they make us realize that terrestrial concepts of God and theology are only a subset of the possible” (Dick 2000).

28

| Aliens

Science fiction has long been a place of speculation about aliens and other worlds, but until the late nineteenth century, aliens were little more than carbon copies of Earth’s inhabitants. However, since Darwinian evolution was set forth, science fiction writers have been more keen to follow known science as they began to construct E.T. possibilities beyond a strictly human model. Such speculative storytelling has conjured all sorts of evolutionary alien life forms, from sentient plants, to mineral life forms, to avian species, to various reptile forms, and even entities of pure energy. Also, of course, there have been many a dangerously monstrous alien (know as BEMs, or bug-eyed-monsters, among science fiction fans), often bent on Earth invasion and genocidal destruction of humankind. Complex alien cultures with exotic alien biospheres have emerged as fiction pursued more sophisticated advances in life sciences, and an awareness of possible environments on other planet bodies. Most of these E.T. conceptualizations remain standards of popular science fiction, in print, in film/television or other media variations. Whatever theology aside, we are very used to intelligent, sentient aliens and non-Terran life-sustaining planets in our popular culture. Even the extremely popular Star Trek series often explores religious issues from, or within an alien point of view. Religious themes appear in all the several Star Trek incarnations. Often an alien—a Klingon, a Bjoran, a Vulcan, a Betazoid, a Changeling, or some other humanoid or non-humanoid being—importantly brings forward their own religious-philosophical tradition as a contribution to the storyline (even though, ultimately, these themes are variously taken from both Western and non-Western religious traditions). At its theological core, most are recurring Christian themes probing the transcendent and seeking to fit humanity (or non-humanity) into the broader scheme of the universe. “Is there a God behind it all?” is a central question with a supernatural view of the cosmos implicit, as humanity and non-human aliens encounter each other in technological, cultural, and religious terms. The best of science fiction uses established scientific theory and technology in treating cosmology, physics, biology, computers, astronomy, space flight, genetic engineering, terraforming, or possible extraterrestrial life as story elements. Time and again various science fiction authors include moral-spiritual awareness to support their stories’ concerns, alongside elements of modern scientific knowledge, gauging its religious impact. Examples and writers abound from C. S. Lewis’s Christian theological allegories, to Orson Scott Card’s Mormonism or Philip K. Dick’s modernist theological explorations to Ursula K. LeGuin’s much honored work with philosophicalreligious underpinnings shaped by Taoist tenets. Quakerism is a central shaping faith structure for Joan Slonczewski’s alien-planet novels, and likewise undergird the moral-ethical-spiritual storyline of another Quaker-informed spacecolonizing novel by Molly Gloss. Catholicism pervades the novels of several renowned classical to contemporary science fiction writers, including Walter M. Miller, James Blish, and very recently, Mary Doria Russell’s alien first-contact novel. The Baptist background of feminist, African American author Octavia E. Butler, figures prominently in her award winning novels. Many other science

Aliens

fiction writers, as well, have little trepidation about steering their science-based stories into serious theological speculation, often enough dealing with extraterrestrial life. Characters, human or alien, struggle to interpret their religious faith in tension or dialogue with scientific “faith” into either guided or misguided applications reflecting our present cultural tensions between accepted scientific and religious views. THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Cosmotheology, or exotheology, seeks to ask and answer questions in light of contemporary scientific knowledge arising out of our eventually discovering we are not alone in the universe, not even in our own galaxy. Most of contemporary science assumes the cosmos is biophilic, that it loves life. And for whatever uniqueness of life forms we find here on Earth, the greater cosmos is probably plentifully hospitable to life of all sorts. This, of course, is a grand assumption, since we have no evidence beyond speculation and a measure of tantalizing empirical evidence. While the leap from the least microbe to intelligent life is mostly the excited and mathematical hope of those who professionally gaze out at the stars, or turn their instruments toward them listening for a ping of some sort, even if it isn’t ET calling, then indicating some intelligent activity beyond the usual cosmic background noise. Belief in extraterrestrial life is actually quite ancient, and has seldom stood in conflict with religious notions. Although, to be sure, concepts of gods, angels, demons, and the supernatural generally intermix with any modern sense of other-than-Earthly life. The Jewish Talmud notes that there are at least 18,000 other worlds, and that such life as might be there would not necessarily resemble our own life here on Earth. Hindu belief likewise sees no contradiction between multiple worlds of innumerable universes, with the essential purpose of creation to magnify the supreme Godhead. Even the Qur’an speaks of God as “Lord of all the worlds,” at least implying worlds beyond this Earth-bound one. Ancient commentators on the Qur’an note that the creator of the heavens certainly might have peopled life elsewhere, if it so pleased Him. Christianity has been more resistant to extraterrestrial life. With the adoption of Greek Ptolemaic and Aristotelian cosmology, the Church theologically and culturally embraced a geocentric model of the universe for centuries. Earth was the center of that universe and God’s shining creation—with humankind at the top of any meaningful order. The invention of the telescope and the rise of contending cosmologies eventually brought about a revision. God’s omnipotence had apparently allowed for other worlds, even universes— although, too often, proponents of such thinking found themselves at dangerous odds with Church orthodoxy. The Bible, of course, does not directly address if alien life exists, much less intelligent extraterrestrial life (unless you consider angels or demons as such). Biblical texts serve little distinction when read as textbooks on astronomy, planetary geology, biology, or astrobiology.

| 29

30

| Amish

AFFIRMING OUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS Fr. George Coyne, a Jesuit priest and director and senior scientist at the Vatican Observatory Research Group heads a small but intensive group of cosmologists and astronomers funded by the Holy See. Fr. Coyne insists “nothing we learn about the universe through science threatens our faith. It only enriches it.” Using the latest advanced technology telescopes, he and his team are searching what he calls our “cosmic backyard” looking for signs of extrasolar planets and their potential for extraterrestrial life. Such potential is very much there, he feels, yet Christianity remains very much resilient. Perhaps we do have intergalactic siblings; perhaps we are not alone (McKay 2000, 50). Also, as Lutheran theologian Ted Peters, with the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, in Berkeley, California, observes: “Christian Theologians have routinely found ways to address the issues of Jesus Christ as God incarnate and to conceive of God’s creative power and saving power exerted in other worlds” (Peters 2003, 125). Extraterrestrial life is still a search-in-progress. If and when we find aliens, they will surely be accommodated into our religious and theological considerations. Maybe not traditional ones. But theology itself, by definition, is likewise a search-in-progress. Nonetheless, along with the Hebrew Psalmist we might still anticipate the “expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (Psalm 102:25). Our awareness of that expanse now crisscrosses vaster thresholds of both our own stellar regions, as well as far, far beyond. See also Science Fiction. Further Reading: Alexander, Victoria. “Extraterrestrial Life and Religion.” In UFO Religions, ed. James R. Lewis, 359–370. New York: Prometheus Books, 2003; Darling, David. Life Everywhere: The Maverick Science of Astrobiology. New York: Basic Books, 2001; Davies, Paul. “E.T. And God.” The Atlantic Monthly (September 2003): 112–118; Dick, Steven J. “Cosmotheology: Theological Implications of the New Universe.” In Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and the Theological Implications, ed. Steven Dick, 191–210. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2000; McKay, Christopher. “Astrobiology: The Search for Life Beyond the Earth.” In Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and the Theological Implications, ed. Steven Dick, 45–58. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2000; Peters, Ted. “Exotheology: Speculations on Extraterrestrial Life.” Science, Theology, and Ethics, 121–136. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003; Popham, Peter. “Pope’s Astronomer Insists Alien Life Would Be Part of God’s Creation.” The Independent (May 15, 2008); Race, Margaret. “Societal and Ethical Concerns.” In Planets and Life: The Emerging Science of Astrobiology, eds. Woodruff T. Sullivan III and John A. Baross, 483–497. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Ed Higgins AMISH CULTURAL SEPARATION VERSUS CIVIL SUBORDINATION The Amish are a 300-year-old community of Anabaptist Christians who practice cultural separation, yet seek peaceful and cooperative relationships with modern civil institutions. Since their division from the Swiss Brethren in

Amish | 31

1693, they have sought to maintain communities that are visibly and practically ordered after the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and the 1632 Dordrecht Confession of Faith. Such faith commitments have led to numerous internal divisions over the proper application of Anabaptist convictions to specific cultural developments, such as the adoption of new technologies, as well as to conflicts with the modern state over their withdrawal from civic regimes that contradict Amish faith, including the military draft, public schooling, and various regulative structures. ORIGINS AND DIVISIONS The Swiss Brethren, from whom the Amish derive, were the earliest form of European Anabaptism, parting ways with the Zwinglian Reformation in 1525, and articulating in the 1527 Schleitheim Brotherly Union, a confessional identity shaped by Christian nonviolence and social separation from territorially and regionally identified forms of Christendom. According to the Schleitheim confession, “everything that has not been united with our God in Christ is nothing but an abomination which we should shun” (see www.anabaptists.org/ history/schleith.html). For the Swiss Brethren at Schleitheim, such “abominations” included attendance at the official state churches of their non-Anabaptist neighbors and the use of all “weapons of violence.” True to their Anabaptist convictions, the Swiss Brethren practiced believer’s baptism and refused to baptize their children, which also separated them from the rest of Catholic and Protestant Christendom. These practices of separation, which were based in an earnest response to the study of the Bible and to the teachings of Jesus, were qualified by an acknowledgment that God also worked outside the faithful defenseless church through the worldly office of the magistrate, who governed by the sword. As the Schleitheim Brotherly Union put the matter delicately, “the sword is an ordering of God outside Christ’s perfection.” However, in the church, only the ban and not the sword was to be used in order to maintain the purity of the congregation. This approach ruled out the use of coercion or violence in order to force compliance with Christian orthodoxy. Swiss Brethren convictions and practices were considered spiritually and politically dangerous by both Catholic and Protestant authorities, and thus were combated with the full repertoire of deadly and painful coercion available to early modern magistrates and territorial rulers. Because of the hundreds of Swiss Brethren who were brutally tortured and executed, as well as the thousands who were impacted by imprisonment and exile, the Brethren were gradually transformed from an activist-missionary movement to a withdrawn-quietist sect, seeking toleration from, rather than the conversion of their Christian neighbors. Disagreements existed among the Swiss Brethren concerning how to embody the commitment to Christian separation from worldly society, including the issue of how to regard neighbors who were sympathetic to Swiss Brethren commitments but who either refused to join the Brethren or were excommunicated from a congregation of the Brethren. In 1693, a group of congregations led by Jakob Amman discontinued fellowship with Swiss Brethren who refused to

32

| Amish

socially shun excommunicated neighbors, and who refused to condemn “halfway Anabaptists” (sympathetic but incommunicant neighbors). This division eventually became known as the Amish schism, with the followers of Amman called Amish, and the Swiss Brethren becoming identified with the broader European and American Mennonite networks. The Amish impulse since the 1693 schism has been to strengthen rather than to weaken cultural boundary markers distinguishing their Christian communities from assimilated forms of Christendom. Amish communities that have moved toward weakening such boundaries have often become identified with the Mennonites, who have usually stressed a more flexible and pluralistic response to cultural assimilation. The Amish, like their Mennonite cousins, migrated to North America beginning in the early eighteenth century, establishing Amish communities in eastern Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, and central Indiana, and then eventually throughout North America, in 26 states and one province (Ontario). Although there are no longer any Amish in Europe, there are Mennonite congregations in France who had at one time been Amish. The most significant North American Amish schism took place in 1865 between Amish congregations that were change-minded and those who sought to retain strict traditions of visible cultural separation. During the annual gathering of Amish ministers from around the country in 1865, tradition-oriented ministers presented a position paper that outlined a number of rules that they agreed to maintain, and that they posed as a challenge to the larger body of ministers. Among the rules were injunctions against wearing “speckled, striped, or flowered clothing,” displaying photographs of persons, attending fairs, driving “pompous carriages,” taking out insurance on property, putting up lightning rods, singing “fast tunes” in church gatherings, mingling the horse and the donkey to produce a mule, serving in worldly offices, “especially those which use force and also the military or penal offices.” The larger body of ministers considered the document politely, but refused to officially adopt it. In response, the conservative ministers refused to attend future ministers’ meetings, and separated their congregations from those that continued to identify with the ministers’ meetings. These tradition-minded congregations became known as the Old Order Amish, and are today the largest group of easily-identifiable Amish communities. The majority of the remaining congregations identified with the annual Amish ministers’ meetings eventually formed regional AmishMennonite conferences that eventually merged with Mennonite conferences or became independent Mennonite conferences. CONFLICTS WITHIN AMISH COMMUNITIES The issues which divided the Old Order Amish from the change-minded Amish in 1865 involved the kinds of cultural and lifestyle details that continued to preoccupy the Old Order Amish until the present. The Amish tended to view any innovations or trends related to clothing, transportation, and church order with a critical eye, assessing the impact on their communities of such changes,

Amish | 33

and typically laying the burden of proof on those who argued for change. They also resisted the organization of central decision-making bodies, such as the ministers’ meetings of the mid-nineteenth century, preferring instead informal relationships among districts and regional communities, and typically refusing to publish the lifestyle rules observed by the districts. Although accepting the Dordrecht Confession of Faith, especially as a catechism tool for candidates for church membership, contemporary Amish rules or “ordnung” are generally maintained as an oral agreement that is renewed through regular council meetings prior to communion services. The Old Order Amish struggled for many decades over their relationship to the more change-minded Amish-Mennonites who remained with the ministers’ meetings of the mid-nineteenth century, and had formed regional conferences. Initially, Old Order Amish who left in order to join a change-minded AmishMennonite congregation were not excommunicated or shunned, as was the case if a member joined a Mennonite church or another Christian denomination. Eventually, though, as differences between the two groups became more visible, it became a standard procedure by Old Order groups to excommunicate those who joined the Amish-Mennonites. Yet, the Old Order Amish themselves often argued bitterly over whether such excommunicated members should be socially shunned, and if so, for how long. Another issue that Amish disagreed about was whether or when it was valid for nonresistant citizens like the Amish to vote in local and national elections. This issue continued to be debated among the Amish as recently as the 2004 election, but has not been a church dividing controversy. The technological innovations of the twentieth century were particularly challenging for Amish communities to navigate, and led to numerous schisms within the Old Order Amish. For example, in the latter part of the nineteenth century some conservative-minded Amish from Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, felt that their Old Order community was becoming too assimilated, and moved to Nebraska, where they strengthened their resistance to changes in clothing and transportation. When many of these Amish moved back to Pennsylvania in the early part of the twentieth century, they became known as the Nebraska Amish, and were distinguished as more strict than neighboring Old Order Amish districts. Among the significant technological issues in the early twentieth century were the telephone and the automobile. Perceptive Amish leaders realized that these technologies had the capacity to change their local and distinctive cultures in ways that would extend rather than limit outside influences and patterns of life. Arguments over whether to adopt the telephone in individual households, and whether to permit member ownership of automobiles, divided Amish districts, with the Old Order groups maintaining rules against the ownership of such technologies. The Amish who opposed these technologies did not view them as intrinsically evil, and thus were not opposed to either riding in cars or using public telephones. They rather saw their opposition to these technologies as a way of maintaining their separated culture as a Christian expression of faithfulness to God and to the New Testament vision of a called-out people of God.

34

| Amish

Some groups left the Old Order Amish church in order to maintain greater flexibility with respect to new technologies; however, other groups splintered in a more conservative direction. While the hallmark Old Order approach to new technologies was to accept only those technologies with limited likelihood of negative cultural impact, some splinter groups, such as the Swartsentruber Amish with roots in Wayne County, Ohio, stubbornly opposed practically all innovations whatsoever. Old Order communities came to reject electricity generated by public utilities, personally-owned automobiles, and the use of tractors for field maintenance; they eventually came to accept gas-powered appliances and lighting, indoor plumbing and bathrooms, and the use of belt power from tractor engines. The Swartzentruber Amish stood firmly against all such changes, including even the placing of safety reflectors on their buggies. Throughout the twentieth century the Amish have also considered innovations related to their organized religious life, the most significant being the adoption of Sunday schools and mission programs. The traditional Old Order Amish pattern of spiritual life is organized around the twice-monthly gathering of believers in homes and barns for worship in high German, which typically includes unison singing from the ancient Anabaptist hymnbook, the Ausbund, an impromptu message by a minister, and responses to the sermon by other ordained ministers. Amish leaders who were influenced by Mennonite and evangelical practices sometimes urged their communities to develop Christian education programs or Sunday Schools, in which biblical and doctrinal teaching could take place; others encouraged the support or development of local and overseas mission programs. While the Old Order groups rejected these religious innovations, the New Order Amish hold Sunday Schools on the Sundays between their regular worship services, support mission and relief programs, and publish pamphlets and booklets explaining and supporting Amish principles and practices. The Beachy Amish are another group of more change-minded Amish who not only support missions and incorporate Sunday Schools, but also have accepted personal automobile ownership, electricity generated by public utilities, and English language worship. More recently, New Order Amish districts have themselves splintered over the use of computers and cell phones, especially in their places of business, with some districts now permitting the use of phones and electricity in their homes, while retaining horse-drawn carriages for transportation. In all of these conflicts and discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of innovations, the Amish focus tends to be on the collective social implications of the innovation, rather than on personal preference or desire. Amish communities prize the virtue of yieldedness, of submitting to the will of the community, rather than pursuing individual goals. Even so, disagreements persist about the definition of the community’s will. CONFLICTS BETWEEN AMISH COMMUNITIES AND CIVIL SOCIETY The Amish have been remarkably successful at carving out social and cultural space for themselves in American society. Driven partly by memories of their

Amish | 35

Anabaptist foreparents found in their revered book of stories about Anabaptist dissenters in Reformation Europe, Martyrs Mirror, the Amish have been tenacious about disobeying laws they believe compromise the integrity of their communal life and Christian witness, often willing to accept prison sentences over compromise (Braght 1985). In all of the central features of life shaped by the intervention of the modern state, from health care, to military conscription, to education, to social welfare programs, to a host of regulative regimes, the Amish have insisted on maintaining practices consistent with their own faith traditions, even when these practices have conflicted with state-enforced laws. At the same time, the Amish have viewed the function of the state from the perspective of the Anabaptist version of two-kingdom theology, where the state is outside the perfection of Christ, but nevertheless an instrument of God’s will. Thus, while the Amish do not believe that the exercise of political and civic authority is a proper occupation for believers, they are nevertheless respectful of the office and seek to be subordinate to it, so long as its dictates do not violate their own convictions about faithfulness to God. Perhaps the most consistent conflict between the Amish and the state has arisen whenever a system of conscription seeks to draft the Amish into the military. During the Civil War, the refusal of the majority of Amish young men to participate in war was generally managed through the granting of deferrals, following the draft of 1863, by paying a $300 commutation fee, or by hiring a substitute. During World War I, conscientious objectors like the Amish and Mennonites were drafted and sent to military camps, where they were subject to harassment, and in some cases torture, with the purpose of encouraging conscientious objectors to enter noncombatant service, which nearly every Amish conscientious objector refused. However, a significant number of Amish escaped military camps through farm deferments. When an Amish bishop from Kansas wrote a letter to an Amish newspaper, The Budget, encouraging readers to stand with the conscientious objectors in prison by refusing to buy war bonds, he and the editor of the paper were arrested and hauled in front of a Cleveland, Ohio, court where they were convicted and fined $500 each for “inciting and attempting to incite insubordination, disloyalty and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States” (Nolt 2003). During World War II, the Amish joined with Mennonites, Brethren, and Quakers in supporting the Civilian Public Service (CPS) system, where conscientious objectors could perform “work of national significance” such as forestry and mental health care without joining the military. In 1952, the CPS system was replaced by the IW classification, which enabled drafted conscientious objectors like the Amish to work in nonprofit service organizations like hospitals and government agencies instead of within the military. Many Amish feared that the placement of their young men in such locations as urban hospitals would encourage them to leave their home communities for good. While this did happen on some occasions, the Amish had little choice but to comply with the system. Nowhere have the Amish exercised more influence over American civic life than in their challenge to state compulsory education laws, which required attendance by students until at least age 16. While numerous court cases in the

36

| Amish

twentieth century involved the Amish refusal to comply with such laws, the most significant case by far was the State of Wisconsin v. Yoder, where a group of Amish fathers successfully won the right of the Amish to keep their children out of public high schools following the conclusion of the eighth grade. This case began in a dispute between officials of the New Glarus, Wisconsin, school district and Amish families who refused to send their children to high school there. Although the Amish were unwilling to pursue the case themselves because of their opposition to active use of the court system, the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom (NCARF) organized a defense that found its way all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which found on behalf of the Amish. NCARF consisted of Amish sympathizers who sought to protect the Amish from cultural interference by the state, including those who saw the Amish as a useful vehicle for preserving religious liberty rights more broadly for conservative Christian groups and their institutions. The Amish have not always agreed about the appropriateness of the activities of NCARF on their behalf. NCARF continues to the present day, and was the subject of controversy among the Amish when one of its members wrote an editorial in The Budget encouraging the Amish to vote for George Bush in the 2004 election. In any event, the effects of the State of Wisconsin v. Yoder have been quite significant for Amish communities, making it unnecessary for any Amish youth to attend high school, and thereby significantly increasing the retention of young people in the Amish church. Another area where the Amish have pressed their own habits of life against state regulatory regimes has been in the area of health care in general, and birthing in particular. Because they refuse to purchase any type of insurance, the Amish have needed to find ways to finance their use of the American health care system, typically relying on the informal raising of large sums of money through the network of Amish church districts, where members are expected to contribute substantial amounts of money to health care funds set up to pay for hospital bills that individual Amish families are unable to foot by themselves. While the Amish have generally been willing to accept modern medical technologies as a last resort, while preferring their own practices of folk medicine in the first instance, they have sought to preserve their own traditions of childbirth by employing midwives, and establishing birthing centers which offer low cost alternatives to hospital births. Amish midwives have often been unlicensed, and as a result, have frequently been the subjects of lawsuits and fines by state health agencies. Numerous other areas of state regulation have frequently produced conflicts with Amish habits and practices, including non-participation in the Social Security system, noncompliance with various safety codes associated with slowmoving vehicles, and sale of unpasteurized milk. The most recent conflict has involved a Swartzentruber Amish school building in Western Pennsylvania, whose outdoor privy was found to be in violation of state laws for septic systems, since the Amish farmers used the waste from the privy for fertilizer on their fields. The Amish have consistently been willing to endure the penalties of their resistance to state authority when it has conflicted with their way of life, a

Animal Sacrifice |

stubbornness that has won them significant privileges under the American legal and political system. Moreover, their neighbors have increasingly found the Amish to provide a boost to local commerce through potential for tourism in Amish communities, and have thus encouraged the negotiation of mutually satisfying solutions to conflicts that arise between the Amish and state authorities. Finally, in recent years, the Amish have begun to produce spokespersons that are able to show how Amish practices provide meaningful challenges to the excesses of American consumer culture. One such notable writer is David Kline, who has written and spoken extensively on the benefits of small-scale horse farming for audiences interested in sustainable agriculture and the survival of local economies (Kline 1997). See also Hutterites; Personal Pacifism vs. Political Nonviolence. Further Reading: Biesecker-Mast, Gerald. Separation and the Sword in Anabaptist Persuasion. Telford, PA: Cascadia Publishing House, 2006; Braght, Thieleman van. Martyrs Mirror. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1985; Hostetler, John. Amish Society, 4th ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993; Kline, David. Scratching the Woodchuck: Nature on an Amish Farm. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1997; Kraybill, Donald, and Marc Olshan, eds. The Amish Struggle With Modernity. Hanover, NH: The University Press of New England, 1994; Kraybill, Donald., ed. The Amish and the State, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003; Nolt, Steven M. A History of the Amish. Revised and Updated. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003; Peters, Shawn Francis. The Yoder Case: Religious Freedom, Education, and Parental Rights. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003; Yoder, John H., trans. and ed. The Legacy of Michael Sattler. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1973; Zimmerman-Umble, Diane. Holding the Line: The Telephone in Old Order Mennonite and Amish Life. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996; Zimmerman-Umble, Diane, and David L. Weaver-Zercher. The Amish and the Media. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.

Gerald Biesecker-Mast

ANIMAL SACRIFICE As a religious phenomenon, animal sacrifice is ancient and perseverant. Even those religions with a long history of official bans against the practice witness to its continuation. In the West, public debate has increased, and governmental entities have intervened more frequently in their attempts to regulate and/or prohibit the practice. At the same time, increased sensitivity to the rights of minority religions assert themselves. Understanding more accurately the phenomenon of animal sacrifice is essential to advancing the debate. RECENT TENSIONS OVER RELIGIOUS SACRIFICIAL PRACTICES Animal sacrifice has been, and remains a part of religious observance in numerous parts of the world. In more industrialized societies, its existence

37

38

| Animal Sacrifice

sometimes creates tensions. In 2001, for instance, the French government, faced with episodes of foot-and-mouth disease, requested that Muslims refrain from slaughtering cattle as part of their annual Eid al-Adha festival. Legal confrontations were averted when the Imam of the Paris Mosque, and other clerics, ruled that sacrifices could be replaced by alms to the poor. Turkey, under pressure from the European Union, recently introduced fines for those who slaughter animals outside designated municipal facilities, as well as regulations concerning the procedures by which sacrificial animals are to be slain. In the United States, despite a 1993 Supreme Court ruling striking down a Hialeah, Florida, municipal ordinance outlawing animal sacrifice, litigation and police intervention continue both in Texas and in Florida over the rights of adherents of Santeria to engage in the sacrificial offering of animals. ANIMAL SACRIFICE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD From time immemorial, animals have played various but critical roles within human cultures. They are sources of food, clothing, commerce, and labor. They provide transportation, protection, and companionship. They have also figured prominently in religious and other belief systems. In some cases, such as with the ancient Egyptians, animals were thought to possess divine qualities, and thus they were recipients of cultic activity. In other contexts, animals played some sort of religiously symbolic role. In Mithraism, for instance, the god Mithras’s mythic slaughter of a bull was believed to be the source of salvation for believers. Bulls and other animals, therefore, were used as symbols for the initiation and spiritual development of adherents, but they were neither slaughtered nor offered in sacrifice. In a third context, animals have been treated as means and instruments for fruitful communication and relations with the divine. It is within this context that animal sacrifice occurs. Sacrifice in the strictest sense always comprises two essential elements. On the one hand, it involves a supernatural being to whom the offering is directed. This being may be a deity, but it may also be a spirit, a deceased human being (hero or ancestor), or a demon. On the other hand, sacrifice also involves a transfer to this supernatural being of some object, which leaves the realm and/ or possession of the offerer. In the case of animal sacrifice, this act of transference almost always involves slaughter. Understood in this way, some instances of cultic slaying would not be considered sacrifices in the strictest sense. For instance, scapegoat rituals involve the symbolic transfer of individual or corporate culpability onto an animal, which is then either released into the wild and perhaps even killed, often to prevent its return. Rather than communication with the divine, or even transfer of the animal to the supernatural realm, the disappearance or demise of the creature serves to effect the removal of culpability from the interested parties. Likewise, some argue that since the still practiced Japanese Ainu ritual of bear slaying serves the purpose of releasing a bear’s divine spirit back into the spirit world, it, too, fails to qualify as sacrifice.

Animal Sacrifice |

FIVE DISTINGUISHING COMPONENTS FOR CLASSIFYING ANIMAL SACRIFICE Failure to appreciate the variety of motivations and meaning given to animal sacrifice has been widespread. Current researchers differentiate among various instances of animal sacrifice by cataloging their distinguishing characteristics. Doing so allows for a more nuanced understanding of their specificity. First, one must consider the sacrificer. Is the agent of sacrifice an individual or a corporate body, a head of household or an official religious representative? Is the right and duty to sacrifice restricted to an official ritual caste, a specific gender or vocation, or is it more open? Second, one must identify the recipient(s) of the sacrifice. As already noted, they may be divine, spiritual, diabolic, or ancestral. Third, one must define the matter that is offered. In the case of animal sacrifice, is the animal domestic or wild? The vast majority of sacrificial animals are domestic. Are certain characteristics (color, size, age, or gender) pertinent to its selection? Also, which part(s) of the animal are actually offered (e.g., blood, flesh, fat, entrails, or bones)? Fourth, one must identify the means by which, and the setting in which the sacrifice is enacted. In ancient Mediterranean cultures, for instance, one can distinguish four phases in sacrificial ritual. First, the animal is prepared for slaughter. Next it is immolated. Following the killing of the animal, there is an inspection of its viscera in order to divine the dispositions of the gods. And finally, in the most common sequence of events, there follows a sacred meal in which human participants feast on those portions not offered to the gods, while the gods themselves are nourished by the aroma and smoke of the burnt offering. Even within this general sequence, however, numerous distinctions are possible. Is the animal killed by the shedding of its blood, by drowning, or by throttling? Is the slaughter seen to be part of the ritual or is it simply a necessary prelude? Furthermore, is the offering burned, buried, lifted up, or simply abandoned? If burned, is it destroyed completely (holocaust) or only in part? If blood is involved, is it poured out (libation), sprinkled, or smeared? As for the setting, does the sacrifice take place in an edifice of human making (temple, home, or public square), or does it occur within nature? Does is involve an altar or a grave? Finally, is the sacrifice linked to a particular religious or agricultural calendar, to the rhythms of the day or seasons, or to life events such as birth, marriage, puberty, and death? The fifth and final component by which to distinguish various animal sacrifices is the stated intent or purpose behind it. Gilhus summarizes: “In Carthage, Egypt, Israel, Greece, and Rome, sacrifices were staged differently and in different contexts, with different functions and meanings. Sacrifices of animals on the Capitol in Rome differed from offerings of animals and children to Baal-Haman and Tanit in Carthage. The sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem were different from those on the Acropolis in Athens. The taurobolium, where the bull was killed in honour of Magna Mater and where the blood of the animal bathed the sacrificer, had a function and meaning different form the killing of a dove or a cat to make a magical formula work” (Gilhus 2006, 277). Thus, sacrificial

39

40

| Animal Sacrifice

activities can embody quite different attitudes and dispositions: praise, thanksgiving, supplication, or purification. Some are intended to establish, renew, or restore covenant or communion with the divine. Others exist for the purpose of expressing human submission or homage. To neglect the radical differences among these various practices is to misunderstand the phenomena as they exist in their natural contexts. THEORIES OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE As Western scientists begin exploring the phenomenon of sacrifice, they attempt to find universal theories and explanations for it. In the nineteenth century, for instance, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, an English anthropologist, proposes that all sacrifice at its core functions as a divine bribe. Alternative explanations follow in which the phenomenon is understood primarily in terms of homage (Wilhelm Schmidt), communion (W. Robertson Smith), consecration of the object offered (Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss), magical manipulation of the cosmos (Gerardus van der Leeuw), and also reenactment of primordial cosmic events (Adolf Jensen). A very popular twentieth-century theory, proposed by René Girard, posits that sacrifice finds its origin as a sublimation of human jealousy, aggression, and violence. By occasionally destroying one victim, the larger society is preserved. Finally, Walter Burkert holds that in order to maintain peace among groups vying for limited resources, rituals, including sacrifice, arise as a means of redirecting primordial hunting and killing instincts (Burkert et al. 1987). More contemporary writers criticize these theories precisely because they tend to ignore the radically different practices, motives, and theologies alluded to above. Moreover, as these differences have been explored, it appears that the Western tendency to focus on the bloody slaying of animals as central to the phenomenon of sacrifice might itself be misdirected. Obviously, if the animal is not killed, its offering to the supernatural cannot take place. Nevertheless, the growing consensus among experts is that the slaying of the sacrificial animal is often of secondary importance within the larger complex of sacrificial rituals. The tendency of Western scientists to focus on slaughter, therefore, seems to reflect more their modern sensibilities, and especially the influence of Christian theological interests, than true practice. Finally, the accompanying tendency to attribute tremendous importance to the substance and offering of blood—which is appropriate only in particular cultural contexts—and the tendency to equate blood with death—rather than seeing it as a vehicle of life and vitality—cast further doubt on the above theories and their focus on slaughter. In contrast, ancients often seem to place much more emphasis on two other moments in the ritual. The first of these moments is comprised of preparatory rituals, most often focused on the dedication of the animal. This may involve a procession of the animal among the people, and a prayer of dedication and petition. In Roman practice, for instance, the name later used to designate the animal’s slaughter, immolatio, is in fact originally used for these initial acts of dedication. The second ritual moment that commands much greater attention in

Animal Sacrifice |

the ancient world is the divination of divine inclinations through the interpretation of the animals’ entrails. In this case, the animal’s body serves as a sort of medium through which the gods reveal their pleasure or displeasure. The act of slaughtering the animal—at least from the perspective of the offerers—appears once again to be quite secondary. Rather than generating universal theories of sacrifice, therefore, most recent studies attempt to explain how particular rituals operate within their respective contexts. Numerous scientists focus on the ability of sacrifice to establish boundaries, distinctions, and connections involving the supernatural, human, and animal realms, but especially between the various classes of human society. Especially noteworthy is Nancy Jay’s attention to gender roles and the parallels between the role of women and child-bearing on the one hand, and the predominance of males and father-son dynamics in blood sacrifice on the other. Finally, other researchers analyze sacrifice as an economic activity, and more particularly as a social institution for the distribution of power and/or the ongoing maintenance of societies. OFFICIAL SUPPRESSION AND POPULAR PERSISTENCE OF ANIMAL SACRIFICE In many contexts, animal sacrifice is, for various reasons, officially abandoned or banned at some point. It is clear, however, that these official stances never preclude its continuation at more popular levels. The generally accepted understanding of Zoroastrianism, for instance, holds that animal sacrifice was prohibited by Zarathushtra as early as the ninth or tenth century b.c.e. It continues, however, into the late nineteenth century c.e. among the Parsis of India, and into the present day in Irani Zoroastrianism. The often repeated position in the Vedic, and later Hindu religion in India, is that the Buddha rejects animal sacrifice as constitutive of a more global attitude reflecting the relationship between human beings, animals, and meat-eating, including a belief in rebirth and the proscription of injury to any living being. This fact, however, is now debated. And, regardless of the Buddha’s dietary practices and teachings, it is undeniable that animal sacrifice still continues in some Hindu circles. Kali, Durga, and even Shiva are counted among the deities who receive bloody sacrifice, particularly among tribal peoples. In Islam, Muhammed permits the continuation of animal sacrifice out of respect for the prophet Abraham. Thus, even though sacrifice has never held an official place in Muslim worship, Muslims have always performed animal sacrifices, most notably on the Feast of Sacrifice (Eid al-Adha), which commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. Sacrifices continue as well on occasions such as the fulfillment of vows, the seventh day following a child’s birth, and in atonement for transgressions committed during a pilgrimage to Mecca. Although it remains impossible to discern with accuracy the historical details of the sacrificial cult of ancient Judaism, it is clear that a variety of animal sacrifices abound; the Deuteronomic reforms’ attempt in the seventh century b.c.e. to centralize and regulate these practices in Jerusalem, for example, highlight

41

42

| Animal Sacrifice

this. Sacrifices continue both during and after the Babylonian exile, gaining particular prominence after the exile, but then coming to an abrupt end with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 c.e. By the time Constantine associates himself with Christianity, sacrifice in the Greco-Roman context has become almost exclusively imperial. Constantine’s conversion, therefore, results in a dramatic de facto reduction of animal sacrifice. In 391 c.e., the growing influence of Christianity results in an official ban, by Emperor Theodosius I. Despite this ban, however, repeated decrees and other testimonials give evidence of the persistence of animal sacrifice within the Roman Empire, well into the fifth and sixth centuries c.e. On the African continent, animal sacrifice has been, and continues to be a component of many indigenous religious practices. It is used to communicate with deities, to maintain communion with ancestors, and to provide nourishment to other spiritual entities. In Benin, Nigeria, Ghana, and other parts of Western Africa, for instance, Voodoo (also known as Vodou, Vodoun, or Vudun) is practiced, complete with animal sacrifice. Through the slave trade, it is introduced into the Western Hemisphere, where it continues today in Brazil and in parts of the Caribbean. Related to Voodoo is Santeria, a religion born in Cuba, and incorporating elements of Roman Catholic devotion into the indigenous belief system of the African Ifa religion. It is practiced today in parts of the Caribbean and the United States, and its adherents defend their right to participate in animal sacrifice. ANIMAL SACRIFICE AND CONTEMPORARY TENSIONS Contemporary debates and governmental interventions concerning animal sacrifice in the West highlight tensions that exist between protecting the rights of minority religious practitioners on the one hand, and minimizing harm to, and suffering of animals on the other. These tensions increase as animal rights activists become more organized and vocal, but also as the rights of minority groups are advanced. Although more historically prominent in the East, criticism of animal sacrifice is not new to Western civilization. As early as the second century c.e., for instance, Neo-Platonists in the Roman Empire argue against it, based on the bloodthirsty image of the gods that it portrays, and the savage human instincts it nurtures. These critics advance the proposal—not unlike that of late Judaism and nascent Christianity—that sacrifice is primarily a spiritual reality. In this vein, the spiritual sacrifice of a virtuous life, as will be argued later, distinguishes a true Roman from the meat-eating tribes of northern European invaders. Nevertheless, absent until very recently in Western debates over the value and validity of animal sacrifice, has been reference to the status of animals and the value of their lives. Some have even argued that as the predominant religion of Western civilization, Christianity has contributed to the weakening of any argument against animal sacrifice. They note that not only is the Christian critique of animal sacrifice founded solely on the disavowal of other gods (and therefore with no reference to the value of animal life itself), but that Christian theology

Animal Sacrifice |

emphasizes from its earliest days the marked differences between human beings, who are rational and who have souls, and animals, to whom all spiritual status is denied. Thus, contemporary questions concerning the spiritual status of animals, and proposals to extend an ethic of life to them, do not find immediate resonance within the Western tradition. In conclusion, the offering of animals or animal parts to supernatural beings embodies and manifests a fundamental human recognition of dependence and need, and a primordial desire to connect and communicate with the realms of the transcendent. Through the ritual expression of this need and desire, therefore, innumerable human societies have sought to sustain, restore, and promote a favorable cosmic order. The role of animals in this exchange reflects perhaps the recognition that something intimately connected to human life itself must be engaged—and even sacrificed—in order for human beings to maintain securely their place and role in the cosmos. As beings more similar to humans than any other on earth, and as domestic partners critical to the sustenance of human life, animals have been instrumental (and even instrumentalized) in this exchange. The question that poses itself today is whether or not this role continues to be an appropriate one. See also Higher Intelligence Animals. Further Reading: Baumgarten, Albert, ed. Sacrifice in Religious Experience. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002; Bowersock, G.W. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996; Burkert, Walter, Rene Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith. Violent Origins: Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987; Detienne, Marcel and Jean-Pierre Vernant, eds. The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks. Trans. Paula Wissing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989; Eliade, Mireade. “Man and the Sacred.” In From Primitives to Zen: A Thematic Sourcebook of the History of Religions. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Available at: http:// www.mircea-eliade.com/from-primitives-to-zen/man.html; Foltz, Richard. Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006; Gilhus, Ingvild Saelid. Animals, Gods, and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Ideas. New York: Routledge, 2006; González-Wippler, Migene. Santería: The Religion. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications, 1999; Gordon, R. “The Veil of Power: Emperors, Sacrificers, and Benefactors.” In Pagan Priests, eds. M. Beard and J. North. London: Duckworth, 1990: 199–231; Harvey, Graham, ed. Indigenous Religions: A Companion. London: Cassell, 2000; Henninger, Joseph. “Sacrifice.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade. New York: Collier Macmillan, 1987; IslamicConcerns.org. Available at: http://www.islamicconcerns.com/eid.asp; IslamOnline. net. http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml; Jacobsen, K.A. “The Institutionalization of the Ethics of Non-Injury toward All ‘Beings’ in Ancient India.” Environmental Ethics 16 (1994): 287–301; Johnston, Sarah Iles, ed. Religions of the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2004; Linzey, Andrew and Dorothy Yamamoto, eds. Animals on the Agenda. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998; Murphy, Joseph. Santería: African Spirits in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 1988; O’Brien, David. Animal Sacrifice and Religious Freedom: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004; Ogilvie, R. M. The Romans and Their Gods. London: Hogarth Press, 1986; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Available at: http:// www.peta.org; Regan, Tom, ed. Animal Sacrifices: Religious Perspectives on the Use of

43

44

| Animation as a New Medium Animals in Science. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986; Sorabji, Richard. Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993; Stowers, S.K. “Greeks Who Sacrifice and Those Who Do Not: Towards an Anthropology of Greek Religion.” In The Social World of the First Christians in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, eds. L.M. White and O.L. Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995: 293–333; The Pluralism Project. “Religious Diversity News.” Harvard University. Available at: http://www.pluralism.org/news/index.php?xref = Santeria+and +Animal+Sacrifice&sort = DESC; Trout, D. E. “Christianizing the Nolan Countryside: Animal Sacrifice at the Tomb of St. Felix.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 3, no. 3 (1995): 281–298; Vernant, J. P. Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Stephen Sauer ANIMATION AS A NEW MEDIUM Animation has emerged as one of the most powerful media forms in the twenty-first century. Animation, however, has evolved far beyond the cartoons of the mid-twentieth century. Animation techniques can often be indistinguishable from “real” photography, which is why the revolution in special effects has impacted the film industry. However, with the ability to make “make-believe” almost entirely “believable”—what are the possible religious implications, not only of the ability to make the unreal more real, but the ability to portray religious films with even more impressive representations of the “miraculous”? Does modern animation take the debates between religious claims to truth and power to an entirely new level of debate? HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Animation has deep roots in art history. Perhaps the earliest precursor is the cave art which simulates motion and represents narrative. More closely resembling modern animation is Chinese and Indonesian shadow theater, which takes its form from artist-actors (operators) who move their hands or other objects, such as paper puppets, behind (or before) a lit surface or screen, to tell a story. Around 7–8 b.c.e. this art form was used in temples to promote Buddhist teachings, particularly about the dead. Later, during the Song Dynasty, the shadow theater was a popular form of entertainment. Qu You’s novel, New Tales under Lamplight (dating from the Ming Dynasty), refers explicitly to the shadow theater in a town’s entertainment center, and thus, evidences its popularity. Rashideg, the Persian historian, attests that shadow theater made its way into his homeland through Genghis Khan’s militia. Later, in 1767, Chinese shadow theater was brought into France by a missionary returning home from the Orient. Within ten years, this folk art was introduced in England and Germany, where the poet Wolfgang von Goethe used it to entertain the German imperial circle. Flip books were a later innovation than the shadow theater, and they, too, are used to achieve an illusion of moving characters. These books are a sequential compilation of drawn (or photographed) animations, frame by frame. When the

Animation as a New Medium |

viewer flips the pages quickly the images appear to move. How the visual effect is achieved is too complicated to pursue here. However, it is important to note that for a long time people thought that the effect of movement was due to “persistence of vision.” In other words, it was thought that images “freeze” or persist on the retina or in the brain for a very short time. According to that outdated theory, if we flip the pages faster than our eyes and brains can separate the images, then the images will seem to run together and appear to move. This visual persistence theory has been discredited; now we understand that the brain does not record the dark, short intervals between images. Toward the end of the 1600s, Athanasius Kircher’s Magic Lantern was pictured in Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae. The Magic Lantern is basically a slide projector that shines light through painted glass slides. This device gave way to optical toys called the thaumatrope, phénakistiscope, stroboscope, and choreutoscope. The latter (circa 1866) is a key pre-Cinematic invention. In the late 1800s, Emile Reynaud invented the praxinoscope. It replaced the zoetrope because the image it produced was brighter and not distorted by moving slots. The praxinoscope works when the outer cylinder ringed with a picture strip spins and reflects on the inner circle of mirrors (one mirror for each picture). George Méliès, in 1896, used film or single-frame exposures to prove that the visual effect of the moving image could be achieved through this medium. Ten years later, J. Stuart Blackton shot his chalk, sequential images on film. Blackton’s Humorous Phases of Funny Faces is the earliest animation film still intact, and he is sometimes credited as the father of animation. Blackton was the first to create drawings that live. Characters would be acting and reacting, sequentially, to each other. Blackton, through animation, gave life to a whole new art form with his pioneering efforts. The same year that Humorous Phases was released, 1906, British Walter Booth screened Hand of the Artist. From 1908–1918, Emile Cohl produced over 218 films, though not all of these were animated. In America, besides Blackton, the top animators of this period were J.R. Bray, Earl Hurd, Raoul Barré, and Winsor McCay. In 1914 McCay’s Gertie, the Trained Dinosaur was released. One remarkable feature of this clip is the interaction between the dinosaur and its creator. Not only did McCay animate—“give life to”—the cartoon dinosaur, he also illustrated the character’s responsiveness to his command. Winsor McCay was a prolific artist who drew thousands of line drawings for each of his three films released from 1911 to 1914. By 1920, the labor intensive animation production was streamlined through technical innovations including cel sheets. It was then that animation became profitable. At first, dialogue was represented in the period’s silent films through the word balloon—just as in comic strips. Later, the dialogue could be followed through movie inter-titles. Animators experimented in their craft, but the more mainstream films usually featured a hero. For this reason the era is known as the Hero Period. Felix the Cat is noteworthy because its hero was the first animated character to be merchandized. In 1928, Walt Disney used a synchronized sound track to put together the dialogue, music, and sound effects for his animated Steamboat Willie. A year

45

46

| Animation as a New Medium

later, Disney produced the Skeleton Dance, and in 1937 he released the first feature-length animated film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. This particular animated film was novel because it was completely shot on color stock and did not have to be re-colored. Disney swept the Academy Awards for animation from 1932 to 1940, mostly because he had employed the best artists and writers. During that time, his cartoon characters such as Mickey, Donald Duck, Pluto, and Goofy reached star status. Disney, however, soon lost outstanding animators such as Hugh Harman and Rudolf Ising. In 1930, Leon Schlesinger produced Sinkin’ in the Bathtub for Warner Brothers Studios, the first of the Looney Tunes cartoons. A year later they released Merrie Melodies. These Warner Brothers cartoon series took inspiration from Disney’s Silly Symphonies series, and helped to give exposure to Warner Bros’ music. When television replaced movie theaters, the standards for cartoons dipped. Deadline sensitive production buzzed at such a frenetic pace that artistry suffered. No mainstream animated feature was explicitly religious up to this time. It was only in 1965 that Peanuts comic strip writer, Charles M. Schulz, released his religious-themed Charlie Brown Christmas cartoon, and won an Emmy award for it. Animation in the Japanese school is known as anime, and it is not unusual to see overt religious symbolism in this genre. Sometimes, religious stories and symbolism from different traditions are mixed for dramatic effect. This syncretic approach to religion changes the original religious content of the images and stories into something which religious practitioners will sometimes not recognize, or, even find offensive. Spriggan and Ghost in the Shell mirror something of biblical stories, and Fist of the North Star and Nausicaä feature Christ-inspired figures. Because Sailor Moon was particularly offensive to Christians for its use of cruciform images, it was heavily edited for its U.S. release. The heroine of Tragedy of Belladonna resembles Joan of Arc. Hellsing takes something of its storyline from the bloody Catholic-Protestant conflicts and wars. The violent and pornographic anime Trigun, One Pound Gospel, and Holy Virgins features nuns and priests. Angel imagery derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition takes a different meaning in some of the anime. It is completely subverted in the pornographic cartoon Angel Core. Offensive, too, is the anime tendency to make the five-pointed witchcraft symbol interchangeable with the six-pointed Jewish Star of David. Muslims, too, find terrorist stereotyping in Little El Cid or Gosho-Gun offensive. The Japanese Shinto religion provides the background for My Neighbor Totoro. Peacock King includes the religious practice of a Buddhist monk figure in the story. Greek, Scandinavian, and even Polynesian gods show up in Saint Seiya, Ulysses 31, Arion, Oh My Goddess!, and Neoranga. Anime is also an intentional vehicle for religious education. In the Beginning and Superbook are animated Bible stories. Anime features some parts of Buddhist and Shinto religion in Space Firebird, and, Buddhism inspires Night Train to the Stars. Anime has also been used by sects to recruit young people, especially through Laws of the Sun and Hermes. The AUM Shinrikyo

Animation as a New Medium |

organization, associated with the Tokyo sarin gas attack, used anime as a recruitment tool as well. In the United States, The Simpsons and South Park occasionally feature religious figures and elements, not to offer glimpses into the divine mystery but, to parody society and its foibles. The predilection for irreverent humor and creedal distortion is, at times, offensive to believers. RELIGION AND ANIMATION: THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION The word animation comes from the Latin animātiō which means a bestowing of life. Theologically speaking, the animator assumes the role of a god in the cartoon world. But what kind of God is he or she? One of the first animators, Winsor McKay, highlighted the fact that he could make his dinosaur character, Gertie, do all he commanded. At the same time, viewers are required to suspend disbelief to enter into the whimsical world that the animator presents. While this does not mean that audiences cannot critically engage with the animator’s work, it does make the latter very powerful. Marshall McLuhan’s slogan, “The medium is the message” can help one appreciate what is partly at stake when religious stories and symbols are translated by animators. What he meant by this statement is that a cartoon form is content, not simply an inert package. McLuhan associated the multimedia content with “acoustic thinking.” According to McLuhan, this new kind of thinking is interconnected, simultaneous, and holistic; it is conditioned by our ears that help us know and relate to the persons speaking around us. Acoustic thinking is replacing linear thinking, which is conditioned by our eyes. Visual thinking is not as subjective as acoustic thinking; it “sees” space, sequential structure, and permanence. If Christianity regards its Founder as the Word spoken by God, then might modern animation retrieve a mode of thinking that was eclipsed by reliance on the printed rather than the proclaimed Word? Gesa Elsbeth Thiessen, who draws on the work of Richard Viladesau (2000), writes that “theological aesthetics is concerned with questions about God and issues in theology in light of and perceived through sense knowledge (sensation, feeling, imagination), through beauty and the arts” (Thiessen 2005). In other words, art has a revelatory power, and thus it has a place in pastoral practice. But what place will it hold? Is it possible to look for God in cartoons, one of the products of our popular culture? Is animation beautiful enough to somehow mirror the divine? Or is its beauty discerned in its instrumentality in spreading the Gospel (“How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” Rom 10:15; cf. Isaiah 52:7). Do intended audiences regard a cartoon Jesus differently than a documentary or drama Jesus? Are animated parables, like Veggie Tales, better suited to convey religious truth than cartooned religious figures? What are the implications of a multimedia experience that brokers religious content for faith? Do the immediacy, sound and pace of multimedia experience afford faith a new mode to seek understanding? By what criteria do we evaluate the results to such questions?

47

48

| Animation as a New Medium

As we proceed into the twenty-first century, the religious debates about the use, and abuse, of “special effects” as well as conventional animation, will intensify as animated no longer means only “make believe”, but enters into the realm of “presenting the credible.” While there is a conceptual difference between a NASA “animation” of a Mars Landing (especially when it is an animated representation of an actual flight) and Mickey Mouse—what are the conceptual problems raised by comparing the NASA “animations” and, for example, a film portrayal of the resurrection of Jesus—made more “believable” by the scientific achievements of media animation? Religious teachers may find themselves wanting to more clearly differentiate between “truth claims” that use animated “representations”, especially when these animated features attempt to blur the difference between “real” and “proposed.” In a recent Time article, Carolyn Sayre writes, “Allah, Jesus Christ, Moses and Buddha have all undergone transformations (pop-cultural makeovers) designed to appeal to a wide variety of people and cultures” (Sayre 2006). Does marketability or faith drive sacral representation, or to varying degrees, do both? What are the repercussions on faith? What are market-based and demographic projections for future productions of religious-themed animation? See also Rock Music and Christian Ethics. Further Reading: ASIFA-Hollywood: Animation Archive. Available at: animationarchive. org/2006/01/animation-100-press-release.html; Andreopoulos, Andreas. Art as Theology: From the Postmodern to the Medieval. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006; Apostolos-Cappadona, Diane, ed. Art, Creativity, and the Sacred. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1984; Arnheim, Rudolf. Visual Thinking. Berkley: University of California Press, 1969; Babin, Pierre. New Era in Religious Communication, trans. David Smith. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991; Baugh, Lloyd. Imaging the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1997; Besançon, Alain. Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm, trans. Jane Marie Todd. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000; Campell, Stephen J. “ ‘Fare una Cosa Morta Parer Viva’: Michelangelo, Rosso, and the (Un)Divinity of Art.” The Art Bulletin 84, no. 4 (December 2002): 596–620; Daniel Z. Sui and Michael F. Goodchild. “A Tetradic Analysis of GIS and Society Using McLuhan’s Law of the Media.” Canadian Geographer 47, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 5–17; Davis, Richard H. Lives of Indian Images. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997; Denery II, Dallas G. Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Medieval World: Optics, Theology and Religious Life. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Dixon, Jr. John W. Art and the Theological Imagination. New York: Seabury Press Inc., 1978; Eck, Diana L. Darsan, Seeing the Divine Image in India. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998; Horn, Maurice, ed. Encyclopedia of Cartoons. Vol I. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 1999; Johnston, Robert K. Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000. Available at: library. thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/perfoming-arts/shadow-theater/index.htm; Lenburg, Jeff, ed. Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons. 2nd ed. New York: Facts on File Inc., 1999; Marsh, Clive, and Gaye Oritz, eds. Explorations in Theology and Film: Movies and Meaning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004; Marsh, Clive. “ ‘High Theology’/’Popular Theology’? The Arts, Popular Culture and the Contemporary Theological Task.” Expository Times 117, no. 11 (2006): 447–451; May, John R., ed. New Image of Religious Film. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1997; Metz, Christian. Film Language: A Semiotics of

Anti-Catholicism and American Politics | the Cinema, trans. Michael Taylor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974; Moore, Albert C. Iconography of Religions: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977; Morgan, David. Visual Piety. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998; Plate, Brent S., ed. Religion, Art, and Visual Culture: A Cross-Cultural Reader. New York: Palgrave, 2002; Pontifical Council for Culture. Toward a Pastoral Approach to Culture. Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1999; Protestants and Picture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999; Romanowski, William D. Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001; Rozak, Theodore. Where the Wasteland Ends. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1972; Sayre, Carolyn. “You Gotta Have Faith.” Time 168, no. 18 (October 2006): 22; Stewart M. Hoover. “Visual Religion in Media Culture.” In The Visual Culture of American Religions, eds. David Morgan and Sally M. Promey. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001: 146–59; Stone, Karen. Image and Spirit: Finding Meaning in Visual Art. Minneapolis: Augsburg Books, 2003; Thiessen, Gesa Elsbeth, ed. Theological Aesthetics: A Reader. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005; Trouve, Marianne, ed. Sixteen Documents of Vatican II. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1999; Van der Leeuw, Gerardus. Sacred and Profane Beauty: The Holy in Art. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963; Viladesau, Richard. Theology and the Arts: Encountering God through Music, Art and Rhetoric. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000.

Deborah Pavelek ANTI-CATHOLICISM AND AMERICAN POLITICS Negative, prejudicial bias toward Catholics is a part of American history, and it was one of the first trans-Atlantic imports during the colonial period. In fact, William Brewster came over on the Mayflower with an anti-Catholic tract in 1620. Anti-Catholicism is spread like other ideas, breeds a culture of fear and hate, and shows up in politics. Anti-Catholicism, like anti-Semitism and racism, has been institutionalized through American political associations and campaigns, voting behavior, and law. When anti-Catholicism becomes political, persons, on the basis of religion, are excluded from enjoying their full rights, and are barred from offering their necessary contributions to society. A UNITED NATIONS DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION The notion of “discrimination” has been interpreted by the U.N. Human Rights Committee to mean, “any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms” (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 1989). HISTORICAL BACKGROUND It was illegal to be Catholic in New York when it was a Dutch colony in 1609– 1664, and when the English took over in 1664. All Christians were tolerated there

49

50

| Anti-Catholicism and American Politics

in 1674–1688 under Governor Thomas Donagan, a Catholic. Later, in 1688, after Donagan’s governorship, Catholicism was banned again in New York, and it was not until the American Revolution that religious rights were extended to Catholics throughout the republic. However, even if it was no longer against the law to be Catholic, just five states offered Catholics full civil rights at that time. It was not until 1806 that a discriminatory state law was reversed, and full civil rights were enjoyed by Catholics in New York. About 25 years later, anti-Catholicism became associated with an antiimmigrant mind-set and behavior. In the first big wave of immigrants (1830– 1860) Catholics, mainly from Germany and Ireland, came to the United States. The Irish, in particular, were generally poor and disadvantaged, sometimes sick, and were fleeing starvation associated with potato blights back in Ireland. Residents often looked on the newcomers with disdain and suspicion, and resented the new competition for jobs occasioned by the influx of employable persons. At first, the negative anti-immigrant/Catholic bias was expressed in cultural products, such as George Bourne’s The Protestant and William Craig Brownlee’s American Protestant Vindicator. In 1834 Samuel F. B. Morse, in his Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States, alleged that the Pope wanted to take over the Mississippi Valley. That same year, a convent was burned in Charleston, Massachusetts. Within the decade a Protestant edition of the Bible (the King James Version) was mandated for public school use, and this, along with the Protestant services that Catholic children were obliged to attend, sparked a Catholic protest. Some persons, such as Fr. John Hughes of New York City, and Bishop Kenrick of Philadelphia, lobbied unsuccessfully for a balanced share of the taxes to go to Catholic schools. In 1844, nativists, that is, the settled residents who wanted to set their interests over and above those of the immigrants, rioted in Philadelphia. Thirteen protestors were killed, many more were injured, and a few Catholic churches were destroyed in the violence. By the 1850s there were a number of nativist associations, such as the Order of United Americans (New York), United Sons of America (Philadelphia), and the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner (established in 1849), which became the American Party, also known as the Know-Nothing Party. The political success of the Know-Nothings was strong in Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York, and they passed laws to quash Catholic immigration (their 21-year naturalization law failed), inspect convents for supposed wrongful imprisonment of women, and to require that church property belong to lay people. In Louisville, Kentucky on August 5, 1855, dozens of people—mostly Irish Catholic—were killed, and homes were burned as a result of Know-Nothing agitation. While Know-Nothing influence was felt across the nation, in places like Galveston, Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Manchester, their presidential candidate, Millard Fillmore, lost by 75 percent of the votes in 1856. Anti-Catholicism abated in American politics during the Civil War, but it resurfaced again in 1884 when Dr. Samuel Burchard (a Presbyterian minister in New York City) launched an anti-Catholic slur against the Democratic Party. By 1890, other nativist, anti-Catholic groups, such as the American Protection

Anti-Catholicism and American Politics |

Association, and National League for the Protection of American Interests (NLPAI), were established. Four years later, the NLPAI at a New York Constitutional Convention, led the effort to refuse Catholic schools and charitable organizations a share of public funding. In the 1920s, immigration was severely curtailed by a quota system that was biased against “undesirable” Catholic countries. Even so, anti-Catholicism persisted, particularly through the activities of the Ku Klux Klan. Though the Klan’s influence was concentrated in some parts of the Midwest, it was instrumental in defeating the Catholic presidential candidate Al Smith. Demonstrating an anti-Catholic bias, Oregon voters made public school attendance mandatory, and Catholic schools illegal in 1922; the U.S. Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional in 1925. Anti-Catholicism disappeared from the political arena during the Depression, and World War II, but it reemerged later. In 1947, President Harry Truman tried to appoint an American ambassador to the Vatican, but the public outcry stopped this diplomatic action from being realized. Two years later, Paul Blanshard published his popular American Freedom and Catholic Power in which he argued that Catholicism was intrinsically un-American (Blanshard 1951). As late as 1960, famous Protestants, including Norman Vincent Peale, expressed qualms about the suitability of a Catholic for president. The American Jesuit theologian, John Courtney Murray, countered this negativity. He helped U.S. bishops respond critically to a set of 1940s Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment articulated in its decisions on the separation of Church and State. Murray resisted the anti-Catholic activities of Blanshard, and especially in the 1960s, advocated a public philosophy and Christian humanism which underscored the need for religious liberty and dialogue. Murray’s work encouraged Catholics to engage in their society and culture. It was in this climate that Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy spoke to Protestant ministers in Houston prior to his election as the first Catholic President of the United States. Kennedy assured them that his religion would not impinge on his public duties. President Kennedy’s assassination, and the wide, sympathetic media coverage of his Catholic funeral three years later, seemed to positively change public opinion about Catholicism, and thus mark an end to anti-Catholicism in American politics. Immigration had been severely restricted from the 1920s, but was encouraged again by the Refugee Act of 1980. While some resisted the new immigrants, many of whom were Catholics from Asia and Latin America, the nativist language was not religiously charged, as it had been previously. Alan Wolfe, a political scientist and Director of the Boston College’s Boisi Center for Religion and American Life, may offer some insight into the change in political climate. Wolfe thinks that the modern experience of changing religion, intermarriage, and “theological ignorance” all have worked against antiCatholicism. Philip Jenkins, on the other hand, contends that anti-Catholicism persists to this day as the “last acceptable prejudice” in American culture (Jenkins 1997). If history does teach us something, however, it is that ideas including anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and racism are transmitted through cultural

51

52

| Anti-Catholicism and American Politics

products and practice, and that these carry into the political sphere where they have historically misinformed and subverted democratic practice. According to theologian and authority on public policy, Kristin Heyer, we have today a more complex political scene. What may be perceived today as an anti-Catholic impetus, may actually be resistance to hijacking religion for political agenda. Ideology, not religion per se (e.g., Catholicism or anti-Catholicism) is perhaps the greatest voting predictor. Given religious-based objections to Mormon Mitt Romney’s bid for presidency, however, it is apparent that anti-religious bias persists in American politics. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION The Religious Basis of Solidarity Catholic theologians point out that all Christians hold that the Book of Genesis belongs to their sacred canon. The creation story in this book offers a theological grounding for solidarity: there is a common human family; all people are created in the image and likeness of God; all people come from God and are called to life with God (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace 2001, Part III, nn. 19–20). Pope John Paul II claimed that this religious perspective derived from Genesis is critical for believers in their daily interactions with others, and accordingly, placed freedom of conscience and freedom of religion at the head and center of all other freedoms. Ironically, groups such as the American Protestant Association fomented anti-Catholic feeling and, at times, violence. On November 22, 1842, nearly 100 ministers from a dozen Christian denominations signed the American Protestant Association constitution which condemned “popery.” This document’s preamble and articles reflect the structure of the United States Constitution and manifest negative polemic rather than scriptural reflection. Over a hundred years later, the Vatican II Declaration Nostra Aetate, which spells out how the Church is to relate to other religions, stresses that “we cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people in other than brotherly [or sisterly] fashion ( . . . ) No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between [individual persons] or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned” (Declaration on the Relation of the Church 1999, n. 5). During his 2008 address to the United Nations, Pope Benedict XVI condemned regimes that require persons to suppress this spiritual dimension in order to participate in society. Thus, Pope Benedict did not claim religious liberty merely for Christian believers, but for all human beings, and so reaffirmed the Vatican II teaching dealing with religious liberty. Pope John Paul II, during his 1995 South Africa visit, declared that solidarity is “the only path forward, out of the complete moral bankruptcy of racial prejudice and ethnic animosity” (Pope John Paul II 1995). The Pope argued that solidarity needs to be developed among nations and within them; this solidarity is the antidote to a widespread breakdown in society and the racism, xenophobia, and rejection of the weakest that can intensify in social chaos. As the history of

Anti-Catholicism and American Politics |

American politics makes clear, this tendency toward antipathy is also directed against religious groups. The perennial challenge of solidarity lies in the last command of Jesus: “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). See also Christian Zionism; Nation of Islam; Separation of Church and State. Further Reading: Anbinder, Tyler. Nativism and Slavery: The Northern Know-Nothings and the Politics of the 1850’s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Bennett, David. Party of Fear: From Nativist Movements to the New Right in American History. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988; Billington, Ray Allen. Protestant Crusade, 1800–1860: A Study of the Origins of American Nativism. New York: Macmillan, 1938; Blanshard, Paul. Communism, Democracy, and Catholic Power. Boston: Beacon Press, 1951; Cooperman, Alan. “Anti-Catholic Views Common, Poll Shows.” Washington Post, May 24, 2002; Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, Proclaimed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI (October 28, 1965). Vatican II Council. Nostra Aetate, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. In Sixteen Documents of Vatican II, ed. Marianne Lorraine Trouvé, 395-399. Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1999; Dolan, Jay. Immigrant Church: New York’s Irish and German Catholics, 1815–1865. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975; Drury, Marjule Anne. “Anti-Catholicism in Germany, Britain, and the United States.” Church History 70, no. 1 (2001): 98–131; Franchot, Jenny. Roads to Rome: The Antebellum Protestant Encounter with Catholicism. Berkeley: University of California, 1994; Greeley, Andrew M. An Ugly Little Secret: Anti-Catholicism in North America. Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1977; Guilday, Peter. “Trusteeism in New York.” Historical Records and Studies 18 (1928): 44–74; Hayes, Zachary. “Fundamentalist Eschatology: Piety and Politics.” New Theology Review 1 (May 1988): 21–35; Highham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns in American Nativism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1955; Hofstadter, Richard. Paranoid Style in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996; Jenkins, Philip. Hoods and Shirts. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1997; Kemp, Anthony. Estrangement of the Past: A Study in the Origins of Modern Historical Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991: 66ff.; Kinzer, Donald. An Episode in Anti-Catholicism, The American Protective Association. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964; MacLean, Nancy. Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Moore, Edmund A. A Catholic Runs for President. New York: Ronald Press, 1956; Mulkern, John. The Know-Nothing Party in Massachusetts: The Rise and Fall of a People’s Movement. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990; Murray, John Courtney. We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Propositions. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. General Comment No. 18: Non-discrimination: . . . , October 11, 1989; Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Church and Racism. Contribution of the Holy See to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Vatican City: Vatican Press, 2001; Reimers, David. Unwelcome Strangers: American Identity and the Turn against Immigration. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999; Schultz, Nancy Lusignan. Fire and Roses: The Burning of the Charlestown Covent, 1834. New York: Free Press, 2001; Seaton, Douglas P. Catholics and Radicals. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1981; Taylor, Mary Christine. A History of the Foundations of Catholicism in Northern New York. New York: U.S. Catholic Historical Society, 1976.

Deborah Pavelek

53

54

| Apocalypticism and Nuclear War

APOCALYPTICISM AND NUCLEAR WAR Apocalypticism has been a part of Christian history since at least the end of the first century. Christianity has been replete with examples of apocalpytic fever, sometimes stemming from arcane mathematical equations, sometimes from dramatic political and social events. The rise of Protestantism with its move to put the Bible into the hands of laity, created a new world in which apocalyptic speculation was now available to everyone. The tumultuous political events in seventeenth-century England, and the rise of Dispensationalism in the nineteenth century, both were the result of this. However, when Dispensationalism became dominant in the United States, a new chapter of apocalypticism, this time tightly focused on political events, dominated the stage. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki along with the brutality exhibited in the two World Wars and the subsequent establishment of the state of Israel, created a new environment for an unexpected validation of Dispensationalism. With the continual threat of nuclear annihilation as part of the cold war, a new popularized understanding of the imminence of the end of the world erupted. This new millenarianism was propagated by a variety of groups, most notably, Evangelical Christians. Today, the Left Behind series (LaHaye and Jenkins 1995) has continued the dispensationalist tradition of terror, but voices have been raised in protest to it, including a new eschatological movement called “Preterism.” HISTORY OF APOCALYPTICISM “Apocalypticism is the mother of Theology.” This statement, made by Ernst Kasemann, one of the preeminent New Testament scholars of the twentieth century, indicates the importance of apocalypticism for the development of Christianity (Kasemann 1982). While the debate rages as to whether Jesus himself advocated the imminent end of the world, there is little doubt that the notion of an apocalyptic climax to history coming extraordinarily soon was advocated by the apostle Paul, and reaches a full canonical exploration in the book of Revelation. Likewise, the historical Jesus aside, the first presentation of the life of Jesus in the New Testament, the gospel of Mark, is unrelenting in its interpretation of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet culminating in the so-called little apocalypse in Mark 13. The apocalypticism of the New Testament thus is undisputed. In fact, the early Christians’ emphasis on the end can be seen in the writings of later epistles, who continued to defend the notion even when it became clear that Jesus’s return, and the soon to follow end of the world, was not immediately forthcoming. Peter II (an epistle probably writing in the late first century c.e. or early second century c.e.) quotes scoffers who say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” The epistle writer’s response is to argue that God’s time is God’s own saying, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:4–9). Even in the light of unfulfilled eschatological expectations, early Christians maintained an allegiance to an apocalyptic theology.

Apocalypticism and Nuclear War |

The practice of setting dates started not long after Christianity started. The Epistle of Barnabas in the second century predicted the demise of the world after 6,000 years from its creation. This was derived by taking the book of 2 Peter’s helpful equation of a day equaling 1,000 years, and then multiplying it by the days of creation (chapter 6). While no exact year was set by Barnabas, the focus on temporal calculations was thereby established. By the third century, Jesus’s life had been inserted into the calculation as the midpoint of the last day by Hippolitus of Rome. By exactly setting the date of Jesus’s birth, the end could be reliably predicted as 500 years after that date. In the fifth century this was extended to both 700 and 800 c.e., yet as those dates drew near, the apocalypse still seemed forestalled. Ultimately, as the year 6000 (from the supposed date of creation) approached, the whole system seemed problematic. In light of this, the calendar change to Anno Domini (a.d.), which changed year one to the year Jesus was born, functioned to revise all dates and calculations. The fact that this shift occurred about the time the old calculation system appeared to be heading towards disconfirmation should not be ignored. As the year 1000 c.e. approached, another rise in apocalypticism occurred. Previous scholars have actually overemphasized the importance of 1,000. Two factors were important here: First, the Anno Domini system had yet to be universally accepted within Christendom. Second, historical evidence shows a lack of signs of true apocalyptic fervor, items like wills, weddings, and contracts appear to have been made with no fear of an impending end. Still, there is evidence of a “heightened millennial expectation” (Baumgartner 2001, 56). Additionally, political stresses seemed to indicate that the time of the end was at hand. With the Norse attacks in the north, and the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem, many saw signs of the end clearly fulfilled by current events. And as Pope Urban inaugurated the first Crusade, he referred to the impending Second Coming, which demanded that Jerusalem be retaken for Christ’s return. With Martin Luther and the rise of Protestantism, the focus on eschatology changed its tenor. Luther himself was not an apocalypticist. While he understood the papacy as a form of generalized antichrist, he eschewed any sense of date setting. While previously he had a sense that the end might be near; as the Pope failed to heed his call to reform, the Turkish continued incursions into Christian lands (including the capture of Constantinople), and his movement met trouble in some quarters, so he was led to a surer conviction that the apocalypse was at hand. Still, more important than his own convictions, was the move to put the bible in the language of the laity. Suddenly, in conjunction with the advent of the printing press, the book of Revelation went from being something selectively quoted from by the clergy (mostly on All Saints Day), to something available for the masses to use for millennarian speculation. Despite his own vacillation and misgivings on apocalyptic in general, and the book of Revelation in particular, Luther must be credited with being the father of modern apocalyptic speculation, even if unintentionally, through the widespread distribution of the Bible in the vernacular. A good example of this can be seen in England in the seventeenth century. The Puritan Revolution of England was infused with millennial concerns

55

56

| Apocalypticism and Nuclear War

from its very inception. The Pope was identified as the antichrist, and when King Charles I proceeded to try to have Parliament arrested, he was seen as ally of the antichrist, and an apocalyptic battle was joined between the forces of Christ (Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army) and the forces of the Beast (Charles’ loyalists). When the King was ultimately defeated (in 1646) and the Puritans took control, there was a new expectation that the time was at hand when “King Jesus” would come and take the throne. This was conjoined with the idea that 1666 was a momentous year prophetically. Different millennialist groups arose around this time including the Ranters, the Levellers, the Diggers, the Quakers and the Fifth Monarchy Men (who included Lords, generals and members of parliament). The apocalyptic flame dimmed considerably after the Restoration, yet the Quakers (though in a decidedly less millennialist version) still continue to this day. The explosion of millennial groups during this time can be linked, at least partially, to the availability of the biblical text started by Luther. In England, the creation and distribution of the King James Version Bible fueled the proliferation of apocalyptic movements. THE RISE OF DISPENSATIONALISM As we move to the modern era, the single most important person to the apocalypticism found in evangelical and fundamentalist denominations and churches, is John Nelson Darby. John Nelson Darby developed the notion of dispensationalism. The basis of dispensationalism was the notion that the world could be divided up into seven ages (dispensations). The first four dispensations are mostly found in the first two books of the bible: The Adamic Convention, The Noahic Covenant, The Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant then lasts for the rest of Jewish history until the coming of Jesus. Jesus’s death initiates the fifth age of the Gentiles, and the sixth age of the Spirit. The seventh age would follow with Jesus’s return and the advent of the millennium reign of Christ. While Darby eschewed any attempt to set the time of Jesus’s return, his approach to Jesus’s first coming was less circumspect. Darby held that Jesus’s earthly appearance in Galilee had been divinely and accurately predicted by Daniel’s 77s prophecy in Daniel 9. While the dating had some problems, Darby argued that Jesus’s life was exactly 69 weeks of years (69 × 7 or 483 years) from the time of Artaxerxes’s decree, allowing Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem and reconstruct its walls in 444 b.c.e. Christ’s return therefore should have occurred in the seventieth week, seven years after his crucifixion by this dating system. However, when the Jewish people of the time failed to embrace Jesus as their messiah, Darby believed, the prophetic time clock was stopped. Christ returned was thus postponed to a later time. This was predicated upon a division Darby made that was pivotal for dispensationalism: the distinction between earthly Israel and the heavenly Church. For Darby, the prophecies in the Bible were either about the Church or Israel.

Apocalypticism and Nuclear War |

Prophecies pertaining to Israel could not be applied to the Church, and vice versa. The result of this is that prophecies relating specifically to the church are very few. Most pertain to the Church’s establishment and power and then its removal before the great tribulation. It is Israel that is center stage for most prophecies, and particularly those at the end. The dispensationalists hold that the Church exists in the great parenthesis between dispensations; a time not included in the biblical timetable of history, and of indeterminate length. Of course, with the dissolution of Israel as a nation following the Jewish War of 70 c.e. and the Bar Kochba revolt of the second century, Israel was no longer a player on the world stage. Dispensationalism held that the end times would begin with the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel where the temple would be rebuilt. Thereafter, the anti-Christ arises, who would appear to bring peace to the Jews, but ultimately breaks his agreement with them and plunges the world into a time of great tribulation. The tribulation will last 1,260 days (3 1/2 years) ending with the final battle of Armageddon, the defeat of the anti-Christ, and the return of Jesus. A key doctrine that the dispensationalists held was the notion of the “rapture.” The rapture is the taking of the church off the earth by God. Christ will descend in the air, and the believers will be caught up with him and be taken to heaven, safe from the ensuing terrors on earth. There is some dispute as to when the rapture occurs. Three positions, pre-tribulationist, mid-tribulationist and post-tribulationist have been suggested. However, the majority of dispensationalists have held to a pre-tribulationist understanding of the rapture. The rapture will occur before the tribulation, and the church will be spared the horrors that will confront the rest of humanity. The actual development of the doctrine of the rapture is a debated area. The term “rapture” does not appear in the Greek text of the New Testament, it is rather an English translation of the Latin word used in the Vulgate (raptio) which means caught up and derives from 1 Thessalonians 4:17, which says, “After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up (raptio) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.” While Darby claimed the notion of the rapture was apparent from his reading of scripture, modern historians have suggested that it was first formulated in the visions of a teenager named Margaret MacDonald, and taken over by Darby from her (Rossing 2005, 22). Nevertheless, regardless of its origin, the rapture became a distinguishing doctrine among dispensationalists. In the United States, the historical popularity of dispensationalism can be attributed to several factors. First, dispensationalism was adopted by a number of traveling evangelists, such as Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, who were extremely popular. Second, in the wake of modern biblical criticism, that was seen by many as casting doubt on the biblical text, the hyper-literalism of the dispensationalists seemed a bulwark against liberal questions. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Schofield Reference Bible became an immensely popular version of the Bible, which contained in its footnotes the dispensationalist reading of the scriptures. Dispensationalism then was now readily

57

58

| Apocalypticism and Nuclear War

accessible to the lay reader, shown in the footnotes of the Bible itself. These three things came together to foster a growing movement of dispensationalism among Evangelicals, and soon led to the dominance that premillennarianism dispensationalism came to have. It is perhaps also important to note one other momentous point in the development of dispensationalism: The founding of the nation of Israel in 1948. Dispensationalists were active in supporting Zionist causes as far back as the nineteenth century. Still, when the United Nations acted to form the nation of Israel, this was, in the eyes of dispensationalists, the unmistakable hand of God at work in history. The dispensationalist had predicted the return of the Jews to Israel, and now their greatest hope had been fulfilled. Likewise, with the expansion of Israel in the 1967 war to include the capture of Jerusalem, dispensationalists thought they saw the fulfillment of scripture before their very eyes. In every timetable that would be established after this point, the founding of the state of Israel would be the key starting point. APOCALYPTICISM AND THE COLD WAR The founding of Israel was preceded by the end of World War II, and was clearly an important event for apocalypticists of the dispensationalist variety. However, another extraordinary event occurred at the end of World War II, which would likewise have tremendous import for modern apocalypticism: the advent of the nuclear age. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were traumatic historic events, and they highlighted a new expansion in human destructive ability. When the Russians followed with a demonstration of their own nuclear ability, the nuclear arms race began with a vengeance. Christian apocalypticists quickly turned to 2 Peter 3:10, which said, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.” The similarity with the devastation wrought in Japan was apparent for the pre-millennialists. Moreover, a corner had been turned. Humanity’s newfound destructive power would soon initiate the cataclysm of the end. As Donald Grey Barnhouse stated in 1945, “It is already too late. The threads of inevitability have been caught in the mesh of the hidden gears of history and the divine plan moves towards the inexorable fulfillment” (Boyer 1994, 117–118). Never before had humanity the power to bring the kind of destruction prophesied in Revelation. Now it had. In light of this mounting threat to human life, prophecy writers emphasized the inevitability of the future cataclysm. The Bible had predicted such disaster, they insisted, and any attempt at mitigating or controlling this power was ultimately doomed to failure. The words of the prophet Zechariah (14:12) seemed particularly apt, This is the plague with which the LORD will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

Apocalypticism and Nuclear War |

These words seemed an accurate representation of the effect of a nuclear explosion, and were predicted by God. To this end, nascent peace movements in the 1950s and 1960s were spurned by dispensationalists as vain attempts to change the preordained future that had been spelled out by prophecy. The nuclear arms race with its motto of “peace through strength” was only the precursor to the end. Prophecy clearly foretold the fiery future, and human actions could not prevent it. Note that during the 1950s and 1960s this was a time of political quietism for most evangelicals. The time would come later when evangelicals would be far more activist in their support for notions of nuclear development. The first 70 years of the twentieth century then, represents an interesting conflation of events that were all appropriated within the dispensationalist schema of the end times. While often times, dispensationalists were perplexed at exactly how world events fitted into their vision of the end, they remained confident that it was only a matter of seeing events through “God’s eyes.” Yet at the same time, the increase in conflict in the Middle East, and the constant threat of nuclear war, moved apocalyptic notions out of the pulpit and on to the front page. Government construction of bomb shelters, the game of nuclear chicken during the Cuban missile crisis, and the various conflicts engaged in by the United States and the Soviet Union, all made apparent that a final cataclysm was no longer a matter of religious speculation confined to a few “bible-thumping nuts,” but a real and present possibility that could occur at any point. Cinematic explorations of the possibility of nuclear annihilation from On the Beach to Dr. Strangelove, indicated a new apocalyptic pocket in the American psyche. This then became fertile land in which dispensationalism might speak a message that both played upon those fears, and spoke of escape from them. In 1973, Hal Lindsey published There’s a New World Coming, which popularized dispensationalism in a way that hadn’t been done since the Schofield Bible. The book was quickly a best seller and was followed up by a series of books, Late Great Planet Earth, Rapture, and The Liberation of Planet Earth. Lindsey continues to publish into the 2000s, though his later books have not been as popular as his earlier work. Lindsey’s work was well received because of its relevance. Lindsey argued that John of Patmos (the author of Revelation), being a first-century Christian, could not have viewed the technology and events of the twentieth century and understood it; he did not have the technical background to be able to do so. Thus Revelation, for Lindsey, is written in the conceptual language of the first century to describe the events of the twentieth century. For Lindsey, nuclear war is part and parcel of the end-time scenario. Written in the midst of the cold war, Lindsey imagines the war of “Gog” against Israel as a Russian invasion. The European Union (here called New Rome) mounts a defense. Lindsey quotes from Ezekiel 38 which predicts “torrential rains and hailstones, fire and brimstone.” This, says Lindsey, “could well be describing the use of tactical nuclear weapons” (Lindsay 1972, 149). Likewise, following the defeat of the Soviet Army, Lindsey once again turns to Ezekiel 39:6 which predicts “fire on Magog and upon . . . the coastlands.” Here Lindsey substitutes the U.S.S.R. for Magog and “various continents” as the coastlands, suggesting, “God

59

60

| Apocalypticism and Nuclear War

could allow the various countries to launch a nuclear exchange of ballistic missiles upon each other” (New World, 150). More recently, the popularity of Hal Lindsey has been eclipsed by the literary phenomenon know as the Left Behind series, written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Sales numbers have been staggering, and the authors continue to churn out book after book, series after series, envisioning the end times. Much like Hal Lindsey’s work, the appeal of the Left Behind series is that it translates the hyper-symbolic language of Revelation into an action-packed narrative. But here again, the threat of nuclear war is present. The anti-Christ launches an attack on major cities in the United States, England, Mexico and Canada, which at first appears to be nuclear, but in the end, only the missile launched against London has a nuclear warhead. Later, the anti-Christ goes nuclear again against the Christian community which is located in Chicago. The narrative point is clear, during the time of the tribulation the anti-Christ will feel free to use a form of nuclear terror to ensure his will is obeyed. While this is different than the nuclear exchanges envisioned by Lindsey, the ever-present fear of nuclear war is still effectively marshaled by dispensationalists. What remains consistent between Lindsey and LaHaye and Jenkins, and indeed between most premillennarian dispensationalists, is the promise of escape. The rapture remains the ultimate trump card of the dispensationalist. However horrifying the visions of nuclear disaster are, the promise of dispensationalism is that the Christian can walk free from fear, for they will not be present for the tribulation. Dispensationalists have been criticized for more and more elaborate visions of the world devastated by nuclear, ecological, and biological catastrophe, yet they only do so because they are confident that they will be exempted from such suffering through the secret rapture of the church. We thus can see the intersection of modern apocalypticism and the threat of nuclear destruction. The terror of the atomic age has, on the one hand, made apocalyptic notions a concern of modern people, as they see increasing threats that look to bring about the end of the world. As fear rises about our perilous position in the world, the message of dispensationalism, which on the one hand emphasizes our powerlessness in the face of such threats, and on the other hand offers a free pass out of this impeding doom, has a new appeal. Now, instead of dreading the progress on nuclear arms and the threat of nuclear war, one can relish it, as it is a sign of the ever-closer arrival of Jesus with the rapture. This approach to the threats concerning humanity has been criticized by a number of writers. Barbara R. Rossing states, “In place of healing the Rapture proclaims escape. In place of Jesus’ blessing of the Peacemakers, the Rapture voyeuristically glorifies violence and war. . . . This theology is not biblical” (Rossing 2005, 1–2). Daniel Wojick suggests “apocalyptic traditions tend to deny the efficacy of human effort to improve the world and may encourage a passive acceptance of human-made crises and potential disasters” (Wojick 1999, 214). And Tina Pippin reminds us about apocalypticism in general: “If hope is a moral action, we must be moral about the way we hope” (Pippin 1999, 8). A vision of mass slaughter through nuclear annihilation may generate hope for those expecting the rapture but such hope is clearly morally questionable.

Apocalypticism and Nuclear War |

Such criticism has not been always general, or from academic sources. Two conservative Christian leaders, Gary North and Gary DeMar have both been very critical of the dispensationalist vision, arguing that dispensationalism essentially looks forward to another Jewish Holocaust. They argue it is an unequivocal part of the dispensationalist schema, that after the rapture, Israel will experience significant persecution that could well number in the millions. Such a program that encourages Zionist objectives, only to see those same Jews massacred by the forces of the anti-Christ, is morally unconscionable, they argue. What is clear then, is that while the Left Behind series, and the dispensationalist vision they novelize, has tremendous popularity, it bespeaks a desire to escape the world’s problems, and often marshals those problems as a way of forwarding itself. Such a position is not without its critics, though they have nowhere near the mass appeal of LaHaye and Jenkins. But a new eschatological position which rejects dispensationalism, called “Preterism,” is starting to become more popular, forwarded by Hank Hanegraaffof of the Christian Research Institute, R.C. Sproul, and Gary DeMar. Preterists believe that all prophetic texts in the New Testament have already been fulfilled with the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. While this movement is still in its infancy, it may ultimately represent a theological challenge to dispensationalism and its terrifying future. See also Christian Zionism; Nationalism, Militarism, and Religion; Separation of Church and State. Further Reading: Baumgartner, Frederic J. Longing for the End: A History of Millennialism in Western Civilization. New ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001; Borg, Marcus J. “A Temperate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus.” Forum 2 (September 1986): 81–102; Boyer, Paul. When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1994; Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970; Kasemann, Ernst. Essays on New Testament Themes. 1st ed. Polebridge Pr. Westar Institute, 1982; LaHaye, Tim F., and Jerry B. Jenkins. Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1995; Lindsey, Hal. The Late Great Planet Earth. 22nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972; Lindsey, Hal. The Liberation of Planet Earth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974; Lindsey, Hal. The Rapture: Truth Or Consequences. New York: Bantam Books, 1972; Lindsey, Hal, and Carole C. Carlson. Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth. Zondervan Publishing House, 1972; Pippin, Tina. Apocalyptic Bodies. New York: Routledge, 1999; Rossing, Barbara R. The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in The Book of Revelation. New ed. Westview Press, 2005; Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin (NonClassics), 1996; The Late Great Planet Earth. Westlake, CA: Trinity Home Entertainment, 2004; Weber, Timothy P. On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend. Waco, TX: Baker Academic, 2005; Wojcik, Daniel. The End of the World As We Know It: Faith, Fatalism, and Apocalypse in America. New ed. New York: NYU Press, 1999.

Randall Reed

61

This page intentionally left blank

B BIBLE AND POVERTY The Bible offers insight into the meaning of poverty and responsibilities for the poor. In both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, there is an emphasis on the theological dimensions of poverty. One of the principal theological disagreements pertains to different interpretations of these dimensions. Some argue that God wants believers to be blessed with material goods, whereas others argue that God commands solidarity with the poor oppressed by unjust social structures. BIBLICAL THEMES ON POVERTY In the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, there are numerous references to wealth, money, poverty, and the poor. These references can be categorized according to different theological themes. One theme pertains to social obligations toward the poor. Psalm 12:5, for example, states: “ ‘But now I will come,’ says the Lord, ‘because the needy are oppressed and the persecuted groan in pain. I will give them the security they long for.’ ” Just as God has provided for God’s people, there is a mandate that God’s people not trample on the poor and oppress the resident alien. The book of the covenant, Exodus, describes one mechanism for providing for the poor: “For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild animals may eat. You shall do the same with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard” (Exodus 23:10–11). The basis for God’s care for the poor (and human response to it) involves considerations of the interconnections between mercy

63

64

|

Bible and Poverty

and justice. In terms of mercy, Isaiah 55:1 proclaims: “The Lord says, ‘Come, everyone who is thirsty—here is water! Come, you that have no money—buy grain and eat! Come! Buy wine and milk—it will cost you nothing!’ ” In terms of justice, the prophet Amos castigates those who neglect the poor as an offense against righteousness (living rightly before God) and justice (living rightly before others): “Therefore because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins—you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and push aside the needy in the gate” (Amos 5:11–12). In the New Testament, Jesus preaches that his followers must reach out and serve the poor, the hungry, and the outcast. Jesus insists that those who suffer have a special place in the Kingdom of God. The Beatitudes laid out in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5–7 include those who are poor in spirit (“theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” 5:3) and those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (“they will be filled,” 5:6). The Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6 extends further the message to the concrete realities of the poor. Jesus states: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled” (Luke 6:20–21). Some interpreters focus on the more spiritual aspects of suffering and poverty, whereas others contend that the material conditions of poverty are paramount. Jesus integrates the two together to present a holistic vision of poverty. This vision includes one’s ability to contribute to the kingdom despite one’s limited material resources. In Mark 12:41–44, Jesus presents a parable on the widow’s offering. The poor widow offers two small copper coins as an offering; Jesus teaches: “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she has, all she had to live on” (Mark 12:43–44). This theme raises significant questions about how persons should relate to their material possessions. In Mark 10:17–31, Jesus instructs a rich man about salvation. Though he has fulfilled all the commandments, Jesus cautions him: “ ‘You lack one thing; go sell what you own, and then give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions” (Mark 10:21–22). In the same pericope, Jesus later informs the disciples that their own detachment from worldly possessions to follow Jesus (imitatio Christi) will be rewarded a “hundredfold” in the age to come (Mark 10:30–31). Similar ideas can be found throughout the New Testament, including 1 John 2:15–17: “Do not love the world or anything that belongs to the world. If you love the world, you do not love the Father. Everything that belongs to the world—what the sinful self desires, what people see and want, and everything in this world are so proud of—none of this comes from the Father; it all comes from the world. The world and everything in it that people desire is passing away; but he who does the will of God lives forever.” Are Christians, then, called to be poor? Can a Christian be wealthy and still be a disciple of Christ?

Bible and Poverty

THEOLOGICAL DEBATES ABOUT GOD AND POVERTY One current theological perspective on poverty includes the Gospel of Prosperity, principally held by Pentecostal theologians and their followers. They appeal to Scripture to confirm that God provides material resources to the faithful. Representative passages include Malachi 3:10: “Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing.” Additionally, passages such as Mark 11:24 (“So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours”) and John 14:14 (“If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it”). Yet, critics insist that such interpretations fail to appreciate the detachment from the world preached by Jesus and Paul. For example, 1 Timothy 6:7–10 describes the calling of a Christian to be in the world and not of the world: “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” Similar understandings of the tensions between pursuing wealth and establishing the kingdom of God are presented in Matthew 6:19–21 and Luke 18:22–25. Considerations of the Bible and poverty require that we attend to the present contexts of interpretation and their normative implications. Liberation theology is a theology concerned with the oppression of the poor through unjust social structures. Based on Jesus’s ministry to the poor in the Gospel, liberation theology focuses on the contexts of exploitation. One such context is Latin America (though, as is the case with feminist, womanist, Asian, and African theologies, Latin America represents only one context). Originating in the Medellin conference of Latin American bishops in 1968 (though many point to Bartolomeo de Las Casas (1484–1566) as the father of liberation theology), liberation theology is the reflection on God’s activity and God’s transforming grace among those who are the victims of modern history. Liberation theologians seek to challenge and transform oppressive social structures, and transform the challenges of poverty, starvation, and oppression. They appeal to political theology (Christianity must be reformulated in light of events of massive suffering), Marxism (a theoretical tool of social analysis for evaluating class struggle), and popular religion (option for the poor as a way of life rooted in praxis). Key figures include Gustavo Gutierrez, Clodovis Boff, Leonardo Boff, Juan Segundo, and Jon Sobrino. Gustavo Gutierrez’s A Theology of Liberation is a seminal text within liberation theology. Within his analysis of the meaning, form, and function of liberation theology, he examines the meaning of the word poverty. Gutierrez submits that poverty is an ambiguous term. Its meanings include material poverty, “that is, the lack of economic goods necessary for a human life worthy of the name” (Gutierrez 1988, 163), and spiritual poverty, or “an interior attitude of attachment to the

| 65

66

|

Bible and Poverty

goods of this world” (Gutierrez 1988, 164). Gutierrez argues that these notions of poverty do not represent the true meaning of poverty; he therefore attends to the biblical meaning of poverty. Appealing to the writings of the Hebrew prophets (notably Amos, and his condemnation of the actions that cause poverty), Gutierrez notes that protest against poverty is an important biblical theme. Furthermore, he posits that “[t]he Bible speaks of positive and concrete measures to prevent poverty from being established among the people of God” (Gutierrez 1988, 167). He contends that there are deep theological reasons for opposing poverty. Poverty is an evil; a fortiori, “[p]overty is an expression of sin, that is, a negation of love. It is therefore incompatible with the coming of the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom of love and justice” (Gutierrez 1988, 168). Based on his exegesis of the biblical meaning of poverty, Gutierrez concludes that the meaning of poverty requires “authentic solidarity with the poor and a real protest against the poverty of our time” (Gutierrez 1988, 173). The institutional Catholic church resonates with—but also has objected to— liberation theology. In terms of shared themes, the Catholic Church advocates for the importance of self-determination (of which economic conditions play a part), and the mechanisms such as the principle of subsidiarity that support such self-determination: “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help (subsidium) to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.” (Pope Pius XI 1931). Moreover, building on the insights of earlier popes such as Pope Leo XIII, Pope John Paul II contends that it is incumbent upon society to recognize persons as persons, not as instruments. He insists that those with a greater share of goods and common services have a responsibility for the weaker members of society, and thus help overcome the structures of sin. Exercise of this responsibility includes the necessity of public demonstrations in solidarity with the poor without violence (see, for example, On Social Concern). Another theme prominent in Catholic social teaching and liberation theology concerns a preferential option for the poor. In their 1986 Economic Justice for All, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops clarified the meaning of the expression option for the poor: “The ‘option for the poor,’ therefore, is not an adversarial slogan that pits one group or class against another. Rather, it states that the deprivation and powerlessness of the poor wounds the whole community. The extent of their suffering is a measure of how far we are from being a true community of persons. These wounds will be healed only by greater solidarity with the poor and among the poor themselves.” Yet, there have also been tensions between liberation theologies and the Magisterium. In such documents as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’ (Ratzinger 1984), the Vatican castigates liberation theology’s method of addressing the needs of the poor: “[This warning] is, on the contrary, dictated by the certitude that the serious ideological deviations which it points out tends inevitably to betray the

Bible and Poverty

| 67

THE BIBLE AND THE INTERNATIONAL DEBT CRISIS The international debt crisis represents one of the most widespread and debilitating effects of poverty. In sum, the crisis is the result of numerous developments. Developing countries were loaned money in the 1960s and 1970s by international structures such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to reconstruct their infrastructures. Through the rise of oil prices and the mismanagement of monies because of dictatorships, civil wars, or unskilled production, these debts increased (as the price of oil skyrocketed), and has resulted in loan defaults, and in debilitating economic implications for the poorest populations in these countries. Should these debts—given that they represent small percentages for industrialized, developed countries, and enormous percentages for developing countries—be forgiven? Or, would it violate principles of justice and fairness if the debts were cancelled? The Bible offers insight into these questions. Leviticus 25:35–55 warns against charging interest on loans to the poor (e.g., “Do not make him pay interest on the money you lend him,” 25:37). Moreover, Deuteronomy 15:1–11 advocates for loan forgiveness: “At the end of every seventh year you are to cancel the debts of those who owe you money” (Deuteronomy 15:1). Yet, in the same pericope, it differentiates between types of loans: “You may collect what a foreigner owes you, but you must not collect what any of your own people owe you” (Deuteronomy 15:3). On the other hand, Sirach 29:2–4 extols the virtues of repaying loans (“Lend to your neighbor in his time of need; repay your neighbor when a loan falls due,” Sirach 29:2). These differences underscore the challenge of biblical hermeneutics and the continued debate on international debt and other issues regarding poverty.

cause of the poor.” These “serious ideological deviations” include the liberation theologians’ appeal to Marxism as a conceptual tool for analyzing the structures of poverty. The Vatican text believes that such a tool attenuates the authentic biblical witness: “Concepts uncritically borrowed from Marxist ideology and recourse to theses of a biblical hermeneutic marked by rationalism are at the basis of a new interpretation which is corrupting whatever was authentic in the generous initial commitment on behalf of the poor.” THE CLASS SYSTEM: IS EQUALITY POSSIBLE? Another aspect of the debate on God and poverty pertains to the class system. Many theologians argue that work is constitutive of being fully human, and being a member of the Kingdom of God; Adam and Eve tended the garden in the Genesis creation account. In developing his account of the social gospel (and based on his experiences of ministering to the poor in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City) Walter Rauschenbusch describes the theological significance of work: “Sanctification, therefore, can not be attained in an unproductive life, unless it is unproductive through necessity. In the long run the only true way to gain moral insight, selfdiscipline, humility, love, and a consciousness of coherence and dependence, is to take our place among those who serve one another by useful labor. Parasitism blinds; work reveals” (Rauschenbusch 1997, 103). Nonetheless, Rauschenbusch

68

|

Bible and Poverty

believes that universal sin constantly threatens the work of individuals, and the construction of the kingdom of God. Rauschenbusch denominates class contempt among these sins: “Class pride and its obverse passion, class contempt, are the necessary spiritual product of class divisions. They are the direct negation of solidarity and love. . . .The class system, therefore, is a sinful denial of the Kingdom of God, and one of the characteristic marks and forces of the Kingdom of Evil” (Rauschenbusch 1997, 256). If persons are willing to work, and if Jesus challenged all artificial boundaries, can society ever move beyond a class system? Thinkers such as Duncan Forrester posit that equality can be achieved (even if it remains a utopian objective). In envisioning the Kingdom of God as gift and grace, Forrester holds: “But the church, in using such language, is committing itself to being a community which seeks to follow and exemplify the kind of egalitarian, inclusive fellowship which was characteristic of the disciples and others who gathered around Jesus. Only thus may it be a sacrament, sign, and instrument of the equality and unity of all humankind” (Forrester 2001, 196). Forrester grounds his claims on the table fellowship of Jesus that destroys boundaries: “The overcoming in the practice of Jesus and the early church of the division between Jew and Gentile was seen as indicative of the establishment of a new form of loving, equal community” (Forrester 2001, 205). Realist theologian Reinhold Niebuhr is less sanguine about the realization of this “loving, equal community.” Influenced by the depths of human sinfulness and struggles for power, Niebuhr affirms that justice as equality remains unattainable: “Justice by a careful calculation of competing rights is equally difficult, if not impossible” (Niebuhr 2001, 266). He adds: “Egoistic impulses are so much more powerful than altruistic ones that if the latter are not given stronger than ordinary support, the justice which even good men design is partial to those who design it” (Niebuhr 2001, 266). Perfect justice (in the form of love) remains an illusion because these egoistic impulses preclude the possibility of true equality. See also Capitalism and Socialism; Separation of Church and State. Further Reading: Forrester, Duncan. On Human Worth: A Christian Vindication of Equality. London: SCM Press, 2001; Gutierrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, rev ed., trans. and ed. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988; Hoppe, Leslie J. Being Poor: A Biblical Study. Forward by Rembert Weakland. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1987; Niebuhr, Reinhold. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics. Introduction by Langdon Gilkey. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001[1932]; Osiek, Carolyn. Rich and Poor in the Shepherd Of Hermas: An Exegetical-Social Investigation. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983; Pilgrim, Walter E. Good News to the Poor: Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1981; Pope Pius XI. Quad Ragesimo Anno. 1931. Available at: www.vatican.va/holy.father/pius_xi/ency licals/documents/hf_p-xi_cnc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html; Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal (Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith). Instructions on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberty.” 1984. Available at: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega tionsoffaith/documents/re-caoffaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html; Rauschenbusch, Walter. A Theology for the Social Gospel. Introduction by Donald Shriver, Jr. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997[1917]; Sider, Ronald, ed. Cry

Birth Control and Family Planning | Justice: The Bible on Hunger and Poverty. New York: Paulist Press, 1980; West, Gerald O. The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Jonathan Rothchild BIRTH CONTROL AND FAMILY PLANNING Religious debates on birth control typically center on claims about natural law and Catholic Church teaching, on the one hand, and women’s liberties and evolving socioeconomic realities, on the other. Questions emerge about traditional understandings and practices of family planning in light of the complexity and technological options available in the contemporary context. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECENT TRENDS Birth control methods have existed in a variety of forms from the earliest recorded histories. Some of these methods functioned as preventative measures, and some of them functioned as abortifacients. They included withdrawal techniques (coitus interruptus), various ways to block the transmission of sperm (such as intrauterine devices), and natural methods (such as the rhythm method). Around the middle of the nineteenth century, the condom first appeared in the United States, principally the result of Charles Goodyear’s mass-produced vulcanized rubber. It gained popularity during the early part of the twentieth century (particularly after World War I). In 1873, the United States passed the Comstock Act, a federal law that made it illegal to send any “obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious” materials—including artificial contraceptive devices—through the mail. The target of the act (and subsequent states measures that, with the federal act, became known as the Comstock Laws) was pornography, but it also prohibited educational materials explaining the use of artificial contraception. The Comstock Act thus raises a central question: Are matters of family planning to be the private choice of an individual or a couple; or, does the means and mechanisms of family planning pertain to general discussion about public morality and the general welfare of society? The invention of the pill in the 1950s and 1960s provides a highly effective and widely distributed form of birth control. These improvements in technology coincide with social changes in the 1960s, including greater sexual freedoms and increased lifestyle choices. Women gained wider and more substantive career choices, which challenged traditional conceptions of women as homemakers and mothers. Women (and men as well) began to defer having children until after they had established careers; moreover, some women decided not to reproduce at all. Hence, increasingly, forms of artificial birth control functioned as the means to expand choices for women. The emergence in the early 1980s of HIV/AIDS galvanized a culture of “safe sex”; condoms and other devices were now viewed as necessities to avoid life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases. The numbers of persons with HIV/AIDS steadily rose; the Center for Disease Control estimates that at the end of 2003, 1,039,000 to 1,185,000

69

70

|

Birth Control and Family Planning

THE VATICAN AND CONDOMS: A PARADIGM SHIFT? A current debate involves the Catholic Church’s prohibition against artificial birth control and the AIDS epidemic. Though it has not promised to amend its teaching, the Vatican is studying the harm caused by AIDS, and the potential use of condoms as a solution. The Church has not explicitly addressed the AIDS question, but it does preach abstinence. Some hold that the church will not alter its teaching on artificial birth control due to AIDS because it invites a slippery slope justification for other reasons proffered for condoms. Some believe that the AIDS epidemic does not fundamentally challenge the Church’s reasons for rejecting artificial contraception. Others, however, insist that the Church’s traditional teaching risks becoming irrelevant, or even harmful, if it does not revise its teaching in light of the current context.

persons in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS (CDC Web site, www. cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/unitedstates.htm). Though HIV/AIDS is spread through a variety of ways, an estimated 80 percent of females contracted the disease through heterosexual sexual contact. World estimates for HIV/AIDS vary (as it is difficult to calculate the figures with precision), but the World Health Organization indicates that approximately 33 million people worldwide suffer from HIV/AIDS (WHO Web site, www.who.int/research/en). Sub-Saharan Africa countries have disproportionately high numbers of cases, and countries such as India are experiencing rapid increases. LEGAL DEBATES In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of two (1958) Connecticut statutes. The statutes criminally penalized the following actions pertaining to artificial contraception: “Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned” (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965, Section 53–32); “Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender” (Griswold v. Connecticut 1965, Section 54–196). In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Douglas writes: “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.” The Court determines that a constitutional right to privacy cannot be rescinded by a state statute. The decision to plan a family—as a couple determines that is in their best interest to do so—appears to be a constitutionally protected right.

Birth Control and Family Planning |

71

REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES Since the creation of the first test-tube baby (Louis Brown) in 1978, there have been enormous debates about whether artificial insemination and other forms of reproductive technology should be used to produce children. Increasingly, in vitro fertilization (IVF), where conception occurs in the laboratory and uses multiple embryos, has been utilized in the United States. The main techniques of IVF include homologous or husband IVF (which uses the genetic material of husband and wife) and heterologous IVF (which uses a third party donor, e.g., donor egg, donor sperm, or donor womb). Numerous ethical questions arise: Are we designing babies (particularly if donors are selected from a review of their profiles)? Can embryos leftover from the IVF process be discarded? Should they be placed up for adoption? Should donors have to disclose their identities and bear some responsibility for their genetic contribution? Should single persons and same-sex couples be allowed to use IVF? In terms of social justice, do the significant costs of IVF disqualify its use by lower socioeconomic classes and marginalized groups? The Catholic Church has argued that all forms of IVF are morally illicit (see Ratzinger 1987), but several theologians have contended that homologous IVF should be viewed as ethically justified. Other thinkers have argued that the good of creating a child outweighs any potential concerns about harms generated by the means of the process.

THEOLOGICAL DEBATES The Catholic Tradition The Catholic Church has voiced its criticisms of artificial birth control for centuries, based on fundamental theological and moral principles. Two leading theologians provide the basis for the contemporary church’s positions. St. Augustine (354–430) developed an account of marriage, sexuality, and family in his treatise On the Good of Marriage (c. 401). Concerned about the lascivious and sinful dimensions of sexuality, but determined to defend the goodness of creation (and, by extension, the goodness of the Creator), Augustine articulates three goods of marriage: fidelity (a bond with one’s spouse that functions as a remedy for lust); sacrament (a bond with God that is eternal and indissoluble); and offspring (children). Augustine characterizes the first two goods as the unitive goods or aspects of marriage, and the third good as the procreate good or aspect of marriage. He concludes that the unitive and procreative aspects are inseparable; hence, anything that severs them (e.g., artificial birth control, as well as other reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization) is not morally licit. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) also repudiates any practice that violates a divinely ordained process. In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas argues that God establishes an objective moral order (eternal law) that humans can discern and participate in (natural law) through their uniquely rational capacities. Natural law, or “the law written on our hearts” (taken from the apostle Paul’s writings, particularly his epistle to the Romans), requires humans to seek good and avoid evil by following what God has established through laws of nature and what is

72

|

Birth Control and Family Planning

naturally morally virtuous. Human law, or the application of natural law to particular communities, mandates that civil authorities cannot introduce legislation that will violate the natural moral law. Thomas Aquinas opposes artificial birth control because it violates the moral character of all three of these interrelated laws. Artificial acts betray the basic rational, natural, and virtuous character of being human. Modern Theological Views: Humanae Vitae In 1930 at the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church declared that the use of artificial birth control by married persons constituted a valid theological and moral approach to family planning. The Catholic Church continued its stance, and rejected proposals to amend tradition and endorse artificial birth control. As mentioned above, the creation of the highly effective birth control pill in the 1950s and 1960s stimulated opposition to the Church. In 1963, Pope John XIII began to revisit the Church’s position on birth control; he established an international papal commission to study the different aspects of the birth control debate. When Pope John XIII died, Pope Paul VI expanded the commission to include doctors and research scientists, demographers, theologians and bishops, and married couples. The majority of the members on the commission concluded “it is impossible to determine exhaustively by a general judgment and ahead of time for each individual what these objective criteria will demand in the concrete situations of a couple” (cited in John Mahoney 1987, 266). Would the Church revise tradition and find artificial birth control to be morally permissible? On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI responded with his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae, discussing the right and moral ordering of reproduction. The Pope reiterates the Church’s position that artificial birth control is immoral and detrimental to a loving marriage. He insists that each and every act of marital intercourse must be open to the transmission of life. He constructs his argument around several key concepts and norms. The first term is conjugal love, which the Pope holds must be fully human (of the senses and of the spirit at the same time), a total self-gift (it is a very special form of personal friendship, where husband and wife share everything), faithful and exclusive until death, and fecund (for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but it is destined to continue, raising up new lives). The fecundity of conjugal love simply symbolically refers back to Augustine’s claim about the inseparability of the unitive and procreative aspects. Artificial contraception severs them and imposes a (literal and figurative) barrier that prevents total self-gift. Another central term is responsible parenthood. Pope Paul VI contends that responsible parenthood means that knowledge and respect of biological functions and their importance for being human exist. Responsible parenthood also means understanding the consequences of these functions with respect to the creation child; that is, if a couple faces challenging physical, economic, psychological, and social conditions, responsible parenthood means the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or the decision to avoid for the time being a new birth.

Birth Control and Family Planning |

Finally, responsible parenthood “also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God” (Pope Paul VI 1968). In advocating that humans must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, Pope Paul VI follows Aquinas’s assertion that humans cannot artificially manipulate natural processes, and violate the natural moral law. Pope Paul VI recommends that couples can pursue family planning in and through natural family planning, or the rhythm method. Natural family planning occurs when couples engage in sexual intercourse only during the infertile periods of a woman’s cycle: “the Church teaches then that it is licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the earlier moral principles” (Pope Paul VI 1968). Moreover, the Church argues that any other (artificial) method of family planning has grave social consequences. Pope Paul VI proclaims that the widespread use of artificial birth control in society will result in the loss of respect for women (who will be reduced to instruments of selfish enjoyment), and the loss of respect for the human organism and its functions. Artificial birth control will additionally result in the lowering of moral standards in society; hence, the Pope warns public authorities: “Do not allow the morality of your peoples to be downgraded; do not permit that by legal means practices contrary to the natural and divine law be introduced into that fundamental cell, the family” (Pope Paul VI 1968). Reactions to Humanae Vitae The reaction to Humanae Vitae among Catholic theologians and lay persons has been mixed. Some theologians were critical of the Pope’s insistence on authority and hierarchy: “The painful experience of the reactions to Humanae Vitae in the Church as a whole points, rather, to the need for more thorough consideration and broadening of the sources of consultation and co-responsibility in the Church” (Mahoney 1987, 278). Some theologians left the Church because they felt that Humanae Vitae signaled a regression in the progressive Church teaching after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). Other theologians have argued that the moral reasoning behind the Church’s argument does not correlate with lived experience. For example, theological ethicist Lisa Sowle Cahill argues that the Church’s position regarding the openness to the transmission of life and conjugal love as total self-gift is unrealistic: “The idea that each act is total self-gift depends upon a very romanticized depiction of sex, and even of marital love . . . because in the ideal of circumstances, human beings rarely if ever accomplish ‘total self-gift’ ” (Cahill 1996, 203). Rather than focus exclusively on the rightness or wrongness of the act itself, Cahill maintains that we must evaluate the context (e.g., economic and political conditions (particularly in developing countries), the status of the spousal relationship, familial and communal relationships) in which the act is performed, to arrive at a moral judgment. She therefore holds that the use of artificial birth control can be justified because it enables women to become equal partners in determining the regulation of new births. Cahill envisions artificial birth control as a possible means for liberating women from

73

74

|

Birth Control and Family Planning

mere procreative agents, and thereby establishing social justice. She concludes: “Considerations of personal, marital, familial, and social justice will be more important in determining times and means of fertility regulation than a truncated version of their human context, as a reproductive structure” (Cahill 1996, 211). Other thinkers have refuted natural family planning as either being highly ineffective (resulting in a very large family), or incompatible with the human expression of love through sexual contact. Other theologians continue to defend the Church’s position on the use of artificial birth control. William E. May, for example, worries that artificial birth control encourages the “culture of death” (May 2001). He argues that artificial birth control creates a dual anthropology between the personal and the biological, whereby “biological fertility is . . . a lesser good—a good for the person (something like a coat), not a good of the person” (May 2001, 183). In this way, artificial birth control risks falsifying conjugal love, and denying the importance of responsible parenthood. May also worries that any children conceived, despite the use of artificial birth control, will be “unwanted,” raising concerns about abortion. He defends natural family planning, and insists that artificial birth control hinders the construction of a moral civilization: “And the only way to build a civilization is to respect both the life-giving (unitive) and life-giving meanings of human sexuality and marriage” (May 2001, 196). Pope John Paul II upheld the perspective of Pope Paul VI, and refuted the morality of artificial birth control. Cognizant of contemporary demographic and geopolitical challenges, Pope John Paul II criticized those who justify artificial birth control: “They too are haunted by the current demographic growth, and fear that the most prolific and poorest peoples represent a threat for the well-being and peace of their own countries. Consequently, rather than wishing to face and solve these serious problems with respect for the dignity of individuals and families and for every person’s inviolable right to life, they prefer to promote and impose by whatever means a massive programme of birth control” (Pope John Paul II 1995). The pope admonishes individuals not to relinquish responsibility and giftedness in favor of technological efficiency and convenience; he argues that the mindset of convenience inevitably pushes those who use contraception to contemplate abortion: “But the negative values inherent in the ‘contraceptive mentality’—which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act—are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived” (Pope John Paul II 1995). See also Abortion; AIDS; Female Subordination in Christian Thought. Further Reading: Cahill, Lisa Sowle. Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics. New Studies in Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996; Callahan, Daniel, ed. The Catholic Case for Contraception. New York: MacMillan, 1969; Critchlow, Donald T. Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; Davis, Tom. Sacred Work: Planned Parenthood and Its Clergy Alliances. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005; Maguire, Daniel C. Sacred Choices: The Right to Contraception and Abortion in Ten

Birth Control and Family Planning | World Religions. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001; Mahoney, John, S. J. The Making of Moral Theology: A Study of the Roman Catholic Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks, 1987; May, William E. “Contraception and the Culture of Death.” In Marriage and the Common Good, ed. Kenneth Whitehead. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2001; McFarlane, Deborah, and Kenneth Meier. The Politics of Fertility Control: Family Planning and Abortion Policies in the American States. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 2001; Moskowitz, Ellen, and Bruce Jennings, eds. Coerced Contraception?: Moral and Policy Challenges of Long-Acting Birth Control. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1996; Pope John Paul II. “Evangelium Vitae.” 1995. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_ 25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html; Pope Paul VI. “Humanae Vitae.” Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1968; Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation.” 1987. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/romacuria/congrega tions/offaithdocuments/rc_con_cfaith.doc_19870222_respectofhumanlife_en.html; Schoen, Johanna. Choice and Coercion: Birth Control, Sterilization, and Abortion in Public Health and Welfare. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005; Smith, Janet E. Why Humanae Vitae Was Right. Foreword by John Cardinal O’Connor. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993; Tone, Andrea. Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001.

Jonathan Rothchild

75

This page intentionally left blank

C CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Advocates of the death penalty assert that the state has the right to take the life of offenders whose crimes are very serious, and that executions deter future crimes, whereas opponents of the death penalty argue that offenders have a basic right to life, executions are “cruel and unusual punishment” and racially biased, and that alternative means of confinement are more justified. Debates on capital punishment cross political and religious lines and have generated significant legal disagreement. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The earliest ancient historical codifications of laws, including the ancient Babylonian “Code of Hammurabi” (2000 b.c.), the ancient Hittite Code (1300 b.c.), Draconian Greek Code (650 b.c.), and the Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets (450 b.c.), all contained provisions for the death penalty. Methods of execution included harsh techniques (that inflicted extraordinary pain and suffering for a variety of crimes), and continued during the Middle Ages and early modern periods. Early modern European practices, particularly those codified in British law, influenced the practices of the newly established American colonies. The first execution occurred in 1608, and colonies consistently applied the death sentence (even if laws pertaining to its use varied among colonies) on religious, political, and legal grounds. Colonies continued use of such penalties even as abolitionist movements began in America, spurred by Enlightenment thinkers, early criminal theorists such as Cesare Beccaria, and religious groups such as the Quakers. Such influences effectuated shifts in perspectives with respect to 77

78

|

Capital Punishment

GEORGE RYAN’S DILEMMA George Ryan was part of the Illinois legislature that voted to reinstate its death penalty in 1977. He believed that the death penalty was consistent with the objectives of the state to preserve order, punish the wicked, and protect the innocent. Yet, years later when he became governor, he had the direct responsibility of enforcing this penalty. In his first 11 months in office, four men were freed from death row after being cleared by the courts. One case involved Anthony Porter, who had spent 15 years on death row, before Northwestern University journalism students discovered evidence that exonerated him. Additional cases emerged, and Governor Ryan eventually confronted the fact that, since the reinstitution of its death penalty, Illinois had executed 12 inmates and freed 13 wrongly accused prisoners on death row. He therefore reckoned the decision about the death penalty as tantamount to “flipping a coin” that failed to ensure that an innocent person would not be put to death. On January 11, 2003, Governor Ryan therefore commuted the sentences of 167 death row inmates, and placed a total moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois. He established a commission that studied the possible factors underlying the potential miscarriages of justice. Among its findings, the commission pointed to insufficient state funds for DNA laboratories and databases that might minimize erroneous convictions. The commission also noted challenges to fairness in the form of systemic racism. The moratorium continues today, and many argue that it should be extended on a federal level.

the death penalty (e.g., diminished scope of applicable death sentence crimes, reexamination of mandatory death sentences, and, by the mid-nineteenth century, total abolishment by some states such as Rhode Island and Wisconsin). In the early twentieth century, interest in the death penalty was galvanized because of economic conditions (the Great Depression), political uncertainties (World War I), and the emergence of criminology. In the 1950s and 1960s, the popularity of the death penalty waned, but debates in subsequent decades focused on the legal, social, ethical, and theological dimensions. THE CURRENT SITUATION: THE NUMBERS AND THEORIES Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, over one thousand persons have been executed. The September 11, 2001, attacks, and the subsequent war on terror, have reignited the debate regarding the right to take a life. Some hold that the death penalty should be reserved for the exceptional cases (e.g., Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh); some hold that the death penalty must be undertaken with a consistent and firm hand to protect public safety; and others hold that the death penalty is never justified, and must therefore be abolished. President George W. Bush, the former governor of Texas who oversaw over one hundred executions during his governorship, maintains the second position; that justice and security can be accommodated through the death penalty. States disagree as to the efficacy of this position. Currently, states

Capital Punishment | 79

such as Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Vermont do not have death penalty provisions within their state laws; states such as New Jersey and New York have such provisions but have not executed anyone since 1976 (though there were over one thousand executions in New York between 1608 and 1976). Thirty-eight states have some form of death penalty law. The majority of executions occur in the South, with Texas (with by far the highest number), Virginia, Oklahoma, Florida, and North Carolina among the states with the most aggregate executions. In terms of the international response to the death penalty, many countries in the Westernized, “developed” world (e.g., Western Europe) rescinded death penalty sentences decades or centuries ago. According to Amnesty International, 129 countries have abolished the death penalty, and 68 countries retain it with a variety of methods and frequency. However, it is estimated that of the over thousand known state executions in 2005, 94 percent occurred in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States (the United States had 60 executions in 2005). Moving from the numbers to the theory behind the death penalty, strategies of punishment typically involve four types: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Supporters of the death penalty tend to focus on the former two types: the death penalty deters future crimes and constitutes just (retributive) punishment proportionate with the offense. Focusing on the safety of society, they argue that the decline of violent crimes during the last decade in the United States is attributable, in part, to the deterrent effects of the death penalty. Others caution that these declines reflect longer prison terms (incapacitation) and other methods that are more humane and less expensive (often the appeal process in death sentence cases generates enormous expenses for the state) means of punishment. The justification of the death penalty on the grounds of retributive justice (that a punishment must be deserved according to principles of proportionality, uniformity, and equality) has been advocated by philosophers Immanuel Kant (1724–1824) and G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831). Kant famously stated that if a society were to decide to disband, it would first need to execute its murderers to satisfy justice for both the society and the offender. Contemporary thinkers, such as philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) and Sister Helen Prejean (2005), argue that the death penalty compromises justice because it precludes the possibility of rehabilitation, and therefore disavows the justice that is owed to offenders. In sum, theories of punishment attempt to integrate forms of justice concerned with the rights of victims, the state, and the wider community, and offenders, but they understand these forms of justice differently. These different emphases help explain some of the divergent philosophical views vis-à-vis the legitimacy of the death penalty. These philosophical questions give rise to questions pertaining to the legal legitimacy. LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS: IS THE DEATH PENALTY CONSTITUTIONAL? Over the last 35 years, there have been a number of significant court cases pertaining to the death penalty. Questions over the constitutionality of the

80

|

Capital Punishment

death penalty were scrutinized in Furman v. Georgia (1972). The Supreme Court ruled that use of the death penalty in recent cases amounted to arbitrary impositions that violated Eighth Amendment (1791) protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and Fourteenth Amendment (1868) guarantees of the right to due process. In the wake of the decision, a national moratorium was placed on the death penalty, and states worked to re-write their existing death penalty laws. The moratorium ended when, in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Court affirmed that proper implementation of death sentences require objective criteria compatible with constitutional provisions. Such criteria (enhanced by new mechanisms such as an automatic appeals process, and the bifurcation of trials into the guilt and the punitive phases) could ensure fairness for offenders, retribution for victims, and safety for the public, but others on the Court countered that such criteria failed on ethical grounds. In the dissenting opinions, Justice Brennan highlighted moral intolerance as the fundamental criterion—“moral concepts require us to hold that the law has progressed to the point where we should declare the punishment of death, like punishments on the rack, the screw and the wheel, is no longer morally tolerable in our civilized society”—and Justice Marshall addressed the problem of public ignorance— “The American people, if they were fully informed as to the purposes of the death penalty, would in my view reject it as morally unacceptable—(Gregg v. Georgia 1976; original emphasis). Later Court decisions would pertain to the unique circumstances surrounding executions, including the offender’s mental status, age, and crimes committed. For example, in Roper v. Simons (2005), the Court overturned its 1989 ruling in Stanford v. Kentucky, and held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. Despite a long tradition of legal theorists who argue that law and morality should be separated (e.g., legal positivists such as H.L.A. Hart and Richard Posner), the Court appealed to an ethical framework. In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Kennedy underscored the necessity of interrelating them: “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework this Court has established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society’ to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be ‘cruel and unusual.’ ” Questions of the applicability of the evolving standards of decency to the execution of those over age 18, sharply divide public debate. Other legal debates focus on the means utilized in carrying out the sentence of death. Currently, 37 states authorize lethal injection, 10 allow electrocution, and five or less states sanction the gas chamber, hanging, or the firing squad (with lethal injection as the standard alternative). On October 5, 2001, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the use of the electric chair on the grounds that it constituted a cruel and unusual punishment. On February 20,

Capital Punishment | 81

2004, the Superior Court of New Jersey halted executions and ordered a review of executions by means of lethal injection. Some physicians have insisted that physician participation in lethal injections violates the letter and the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath, whereas others argue that such participation promotes the common good of society. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS: DEBATING THE DEATH PENALTY Disagreement between Christian theologians and ethicists on the death penalty is based partially on divergent readings of Scripture. Exegetical differences emerge based on the methodological lenses undertaken; for example, some more conservative Christians adopt a literalist approach. Therefore, passages such as Exodus 21:12 (“Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death”) indicate God’s clear affirmation of the death penalty. Other Christians argue that a better reading of the Bible is one that discloses overarching themes—such as forgiveness, love of neighbor and enemy, and redemption—and these are not compatible with the death penalty. In addition to these methodological debates, an equally significant conversation concerns the nature and character of God as a God of justice or a God of mercy. These two notions are not antithetical, but emphasis on one aspect over the other can undergird support or rejection of the death penalty. Those who emphasize a God of justice, point to passages such as Exodus 21:23–25 (“If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, strip for stripe), which views the death penalty not as revenge, but as in accordance with the just laws given by God. Romans 13:1–7, embraced by theologians such as Martin Luther (1483–1546), further endorses the death penalty: the state is the servant of God who is “to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.” As Luther interprets this passage, the task of the state is to preserve order by restraining and punishing the wicked, and protecting the innocent. By contrast, those who privilege the God of mercy suggest that God’s love and forgiveness are exemplified in passages such as Genesis 4:15, where God commuted a death sentence (“And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him”), and the spirit of Matthew 5:38–48 (Jesus teaches turning the other cheek, forgiveness, and love of enemies). Careful comparison of these passages and many others raise difficult questions regarding God’s action in the world, and human reception of and response to it. In his Summa Theologiae, theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) stipulates that it is lawful to kill human beings as long as they are sinners (as it is never lawful to kill innocent persons), and the execution is carried out by the state. He construes execution in terms of excising a diseased hand from a body to preserve the health of the body. Put differently, he develops an argument from the common good, whereby the execution of murderers is justified on the grounds that it protects the basic values of the community. As entrusted with the care of the common good, persons of rank having public authority can perform these executions. Writing over 700 years later, Pope John Paul II seeks to

82

|

Capital Punishment

THE PLACE FOR MERCY: CLEMENCY Is there a place for the suspension of a state’s right to execute its prisoners? If so, what are the criteria for granting this suspension in the form of pardons or clemency? According to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1976, 229 death row inmates have been granted clemency (including Gov. Ryan’s commuting of all death sentences). Discoveries of new evidence, police corruption, coerced confessions, and other revelations invoking doubt about one’s guilt provide examples where clemency or re-trials are warranted and even demanded. More controversial examples can be found in executive prerogative or the voices of victims. In 1986, New Mexico Governor Tony Anaya commutated the death sentences of five death row inmates because he himself opposed the death penalty. Did such action promote justice (by sparing their lives and giving them life imprisonment), or did it impose arbitrariness on justice (by reversing the rule of law)? Another difficult case study can be found in the Matthew Sheppard trial. Sheppard was beaten to death primarily because of his sexual orientation, yet his parents did not seek the death penalty, and worked with prosecutors to secure life-imprisonment. Other families of victims have lobbied intensely for prosecutors to pursue the death penalty when their loved ones are killed. To what extent should families contribute to these criminal justice processes? Is there a place for both justice, in the form of retribution, and clemency, in the form of mercy? The answers to the questions lie at the heart of the death penalty debate.

protect the individual dignity of the offender, as well as to defend public order. In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) (1995), he develops a consistent ethic of life that refutes anything opposed to life, particularly innocent life. Does capital punishment violate this ethic of life? The Pope develops the tradition by defending the death penalty, but only “in cases of extreme necessity—cases when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society” and, the Pope adds, such cases are “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” In subsequent years, Pope John Paul II (reiterated elsewhere by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) appealed for a consensus to end the death penalty. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS Those who argue for abolishment of the death penalty in the United States frequently point to two factors pertaining to race and class. In terms of race, there are a disproportionate number of African Americans on death row (as they are in the general prison population as a whole). Moreover, additional studies reveal that the race of the victim can significantly influence the decision to pursue the death penalty, particularly in cases where a white person is killed in the South. Some argue that these statistics represent lingering racial prejudices, and systemic inequalities that perpetuate injustices, whereas others hold that the statistics reflect less racial biases than the unfortunate life-situations of many

Capitalism and Socialism | 83

marginalized persons. In terms of class, the adequacy of legal representation can be the decisive factor between a death sentence, a negotiated settlement, or even innocence. Court-appointed attorneys and public defenders can offer suitable legal counsel, but they are commonly underpaid and inexperienced and may, in part, account for the disproportionate number of lower income individuals on death row. The expansion of legal clinics and pro bono work among experienced lawyers might help redress some of these challenges. The Death Penalty debate involves both philosophical differences (especially different ideas of the goals of punishment, prison, and the justice system), as well as religious differences (including conflicting interpretations of the Bible among Christians). See also Abortion; Jailhouse Conversions; Personal Pacifism versus Political Nonviolence. Further Reading: Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty: An American History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002; Bedau, Hugo Adam. Killing as Punishment: Reflections on the Death Penalty in America. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2004; Brugger, E. Christian. Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003; Death Penalty Information Center. Available at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org; Hodgkinson, Peter, and William A. Schabas, eds. Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Marshall, Christopher D. Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001; Megivern, James J. The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press, 1997; Owens, Erik C., John D. Carlson, and Eric P. Elshtain, eds. Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004; Prejean, Sister Helen. The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions. New York: Random House, 2005; Sarat, Austin. Mercy on Trial: What It Means to Stop an Execution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005; Schabas, William A. The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Stassen, Glen H., ed. Capital Punishment: A Reader. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1998; Taylor, Mark Lewis. The Executed God: The Way of the Cross In Lockdown America. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death. Washington, D.C.: USCCB Publication, 2005.

Jonathan Rothchild CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM Assessing the advantages and disadvantages of capitalism and socialism requires careful consideration of the proper role of the market, the adequacy of workers’ wages, and anthropological dimensions of human freedom, responsibility, and solidarity. While some theologians view capitalism as consistent with God’s ordering of the world, others abrogate capitalism’s focus on individual self-interest. Other theologians refute socialism as a proper alternative because it disavows individual freedom. Others argue that social justice requires some kind of mediation between socialism and capitalism.

84

|

Capitalism and Socialism

ASSESSING THE MARKET: GOVERNED BY SELFINTEREST OR THE COMMON GOOD? A central disagreement in economic debates (and debates about capitalism and socialism, in particular) surrounds the legitimacy of the market. One debate pertains to the interpretation of Adam Smith (1723–1790). Often viewed as the father of modern capitalism, Smith explains in The Wealth of Nations, basic economic principles such as the division of labor, the laissez-faire mechanisms of the market (including the presence of the so-called invisible hand), and the three factors of production (land, labor, and capital), and their correspondence to three forms of monetary return (rent, wages, and profit) (Smith 1776). Rational choice theorists conceptualizing economic agents as characteristically rationally self-interested have seized upon Smith’s assumptions about human nature to affirm that self-interest sustains market transactions. As Smith famously writes, “It is not from the benevolence of butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We need ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages” (Smith 1776, Book I, Chapter 2). Yet, Smith had also written another text, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which receives less attention, but is equally important in describing the relationship between the market and the ethical motivations for participating in the market. He writes: “And hence it is, that to feel much for others, and little for ourselves, that to restrain our selfish, and to indulge our benevolent, affections, constitutes the perfection of human nature” (Smith 1759, Part I, Section I, Chapter V). Which of these two texts of Smith, then, more adequately captures the aspects of human nature and moral motivations for market actions? Neoclassical economics, including figures such as Milton Friedman, promotes a vision of the market that privileges rational self-interest and freedom. Promarket theologians such as Michael Novak affirm freedom as the basis for capitalism. Novak envisions freedom as closely interconnected with creativity and responsibility, where “[t]he world as Adam faced it after the Garden of Eden left humankind in misery and hunger for millennia. Now that the secrets of sustained material progress have been decoded, the responsibility for reducing misery and hunger is no longer God’s but ours” (Novak 1982, 28). Novak and others view capitalism as the mechanism for preserving the political values of liberalism (e.g., equality and order) and the theological values afforded by a providential God. Theologian Sallie McFague argues that such a vision has deleterious ethical and theological consequences. She worries that libertarian and free-market dependence on the market renders God to be a radically transcendent God, which, as in the model of the Deists, severs the connections between God’s transcendence and immanence. Rather than viewing God’s creation as an abundance to be shared by everyone within a broad spectrum of values, neoclassical models view the world as one of material fulfillment: “Neo-classical economics has one value: the monetary fulfillment of individuals provided they compete successfully for the resources” (McFague 2001, 75; original emphasis). Liberation theologians critique capitalist social structures as oppressive because

Capitalism and Socialism | 85

they instrumentalize the poor, and serve purposes counter to the kingdom of God. Some refer to liberation theologians as religious socialists, in part, because they appropriate Marxist tools such as class conflict in articulating their theological views. Other theologians such as Paul Tillich (1886–1965), participated in the Religious Socialist movement, which, according to Tillich, adopts a prophetic attitude that critiques all conditioned forms—including religious socialism itself—and embraces a theonomous (and not utopian) vision of the relationship between theology and culture. Tillich worries about capitalism’s emphasis on technical reason and the instrumentalization of persons as things (Tillich 1951). In general, socialism affirms that possessions must be viewed in terms of the collective, and in terms of need (not want). For example, Acts 2:44–45 states: “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” Early Christian communities relied on such economic solidarity, and monastic models continued to view material goods in terms of the collective. In undertaking the vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, individuals in religious orders could “use” but not “possess” particular material objects. Are these groups then inherently socialist? Must they reject all forms of capitalism? Is there a sense in which God refutes money? Sociologist Max Weber’s analysis of different Protestant groups indicates that theological understandings of God’s working in the world influence one’s labor in the world. More specifically, in his Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argued that these groups conceptualized wealth as a sign of divine election; their gratitude toward God helped to stimulate economic production (Weber 1958). Theologian Kathryn Tanner takes another perspective about the relationship between grace and money; she argues that the two can be integrated more fully than in the present capitalistic system. Grounding notions of unconditional giving and noncompetitive economic relations on God’s grace, Tanner re-imagines the present market system to address the public and private aspects of economic exchanges (Tanner 2005). In socialism, the market is not the primary economic agent, but rather the state, which places restrictions on market mechanisms. Different forms of socialism have existed throughout history, including socialist forms of communism. Socialism affirms the dignity of the individual worker, seeks to empower the poor, and confronts exploitation and its resulting inequality. The task, according to Karl Marx, is to effectuate revolution and the transformation of class struggle. Theologians have critiqued Marxism and socialism on the grounds that it disavows the importance of God, the individual, freedom, and harmonious reconciliation. Others suggest that the original principles of socialism, for example, the idea of each according to his or her own needs, have been corrupted in and through the politicization of socialism by Lenin and Stalin. In Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Pope Pius XI castigates two beliefs of communism, notably its “twofold aim: merciless class warfare and the complete abolition of private ownership” (Pope Pius XI 1931, Section III, Part 2). Sixty years later, Pope John Paul II extends further the critique of socialism on

86

|

Capitalism and Socialism

anthropological grounds: “Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual, is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socioeconomic mechanism” (Pope John Paul II 1991, Section 1, Paragraph 13). If different theologians critique both capitalism and socialism, how can one arrive at a coherent solution? Some theologians have diagnosed the problem as one that requires both the insights of socialism and capitalism. In Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern), Pope John Paul II (1987) critiques two trends within the world economy: underdevelopment and superdevelopment. The Pope argues that the former model (driven by the lack of meeting basic needs), and the latter model (driven by capitalistic pursuits of wants), are both insufficient. The Pope construes the problem in anthropological terms (being and having) regarding one’s orientation to basic goods: “there are some people—the few who possess much—who do really succeed in ‘being’ because, through a reversal of the hierarchy of values, they are hindered by the cult of ‘having;’ and there are others—the many who have little or nothing—who do not succeed in realizing their basic human vocation because they are deprived of essential goods” (Pope John Paul II 1987, Section IV, Paragraph 28). The Pope does not repudiate ‘having’ as such, but he argues that a proper ordering of goods and one’s relation to them—such that ‘being’ and ‘having’ attain some kind of balance—must underlie social justice. Social justice must attend to the basic material needs of the individual, but these needs must be viewed in terms of social participation, solidarity among all persons, and a value-laden common good.

CORPORATE CRASHES AND GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS The early 2000s witnessed remarkable economic growth, and significant increases in shareholder value and stock prices, but they also will be remembered for egregious corporate greed, manipulation, and failure. The examples of Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Global Crossing, McKesson-HBO Company, and Tenet Healthcare represent corporate giants whose stock plummeted as a result of market forces and mismanagement. Should the corporate executives be held accountable for the devastating losses, particularly in cases where they profited substantially as their own employees lost their retirement savings? Should the government impose strict regulations, or would such regulations alter and inhibit the normal functioning of the market? That is, should a more capitalistic approach let the market determine such actions; or, should a more socialistic approach let the government determine such actions? On July 25, 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which expanded the procedures for corporate governance. Those in opposition to the act (and further regulation) argue the act has increased corporate spending by billions without solving the problem of corruption. Theologians such as Michael Novak worry that regulation vitiates the freedom, spirit, and integrity of the corporation. Others in support of the act, hold that increased corporate governance will work to ensure that market mechanisms cannot result in financial collapses.

Capitalism and Socialism | 87

LABOR POLITICS: MINIMUM WAGE DEBATES An important practical case study is the minimum wage debate. A primary question pertains to the individual dimensions (does the wage function to protect workers or does it provide inadequate compensation?) and social dimensions (does the wage function to reduce the overall costs of goods and services or does it amount to an exploitation of workers?). In July 2007, Congress enacted laws that changed the federal minimum wage to $5.85 per hour, and stipulated that minimum would increase to $6.55 in July 2008, and to $7.25 in July 2009. Supporters heralded the legislation as a necessary provision to increased costs of living (e.g., rent, gasoline prices, and health insurance) that had been neglected during the previous decade (1997–2007) when the minimum wage remained static at $5.15. Opponents worried that the elevation of the wage (and subsequent increases) would produce deleterious economic consequences (ranging from price pressures on basic goods and services to widespread layoffs). They argue that it is the personal responsibility of the individual worker to acquire the necessary education and training to qualify for positions that earn higher wages. Various cities, such as San Francisco and Santa Fe, New Mexico, have created “living wages” in response to high costs of living. In some cases, such as Chicago, large corporations have threatened to move store locations if the city mandated higher wages. Theological voices have been active in the minimum wage debate. Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Labor), addressed the issues of adequate wages, child labor laws, and safe working conditions. In the 1890s, priests began to support the labor unions and workers’ strikes. Protestants such as Henry Ward Beecher, Dwight Moody, and Mary Becker Eddy also lent significant support to the labor movement. Such support served as the foundation for emerging social reforms. Later popes posit that wage levels must reflect the requirements of the common good. In Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Pope Pius XI cautions: “To lower or raise wages unduly, with a view to private profit, and with no consideration for the common good, is contrary to social justice” (Pope Pius XI 1931, Section II, Part 4). Another prominent advocate of fair wages was John Ryan (1869–1945), a Catholic priest and an economist. Striving to integrate moral and economic principles, and a commitment to social doctrine to action and progressive reform; he served as the head of the Social Action Department of the National Catholic Welfare Council. In his two main writings, A Living Wage (1906) and Distributive Justice (1916), he argued wages must be construed in terms of living wages. For example, in Distributive Justice, he rejects a purely need-driven economic system (which he identifies as a canon of Communism), but he insists that “it is valid and indispensable as a partial standard” for a living wage (Ryan 1996, 112). Ryan develops an account of a living wage based upon three fundamental principles of creation: God’s creation of sustenance for all and the equal dignity of all persons in their claims upon creation; the right to access to the earth is conditioned upon the expenditure of useful labor; and those in control of the opportunities to access the earth’s creation must permit reasonable access to persons willing to work.

88

|

Capitalism and Socialism

Building upon these theological principles, Ryan upholds the necessity of a decent livelihood (where all persons possess the basic materials and goods, including food, shelter, clothing, and family, that enable a life of flourishing and the pursuit of self-perfection) and the ethical value of labor. The latter concept challenges capitalism’s assumptions that wages should be measured purely by market value. By contrast, Ryan contends that wages should be measured according to their ethical value, grounded in an extrinsic ethical principle: “such an extrinsic principle is found in the proposition that the personal dignity of the laborer entitles him to a wage adequate to a decent livelihood; therefore, the ethical value of labor is always equivalent to at least a living wage, and the employer is morally bound to give this much remuneration” (Ryan 1996, 119). Ryan proposes a practical mechanism for implementing these theories and achieving this living wage. Appropriating the family allowance system from the models of France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany (and thus extending further his commitment to the mediation of socialism and capitalism). Among its provisions, the family allowance system mandates addition wages for workers with children: “At the birth of each child, the wage of the father is increased and the total amount of extra compensation is determined by the number of children who are below the fixed maximum age” (Ryan 1996, 123). See also Bible and Poverty. Further Reading: Bayer, Richard. Capitalism and Christianity: The Possibility of Christian Personalism. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1999; Childs, James M. Greed: Economics and Ethics in Conflict. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000; De Vries, Barend A. Champions of the Poor: The Economic Consequences of Judeo-Christian Values. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998; Holland, Joe. Modern Catholic Social Teaching: The Popes Confront the Industrial Age, 1740–1958. New York: Paulist Press, 2003; Long, D. Stephen. Divine Economy: Theology and the Market. London: Routledge, 2000; Massero, Thomas, S. J. Living Justice: Catholic Social Teaching in Action. Lanham, MD: Sheed and Ward, 2000; McFague, Sallie. Life Abundant: Rethinking Theology and Economy for a Planet in Peril. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001; Novak, Michael. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982; Pope John Paul II. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. 1987. Available at: http://www.vati can.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sol licitudo_rei_socialis_en.html; Pope John Paul II. Centesimus Anno. 1991. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_ enc_01051991_centesimus_anno_en.html; Ryan, John A. Economic Justice: Selection from Distributive Justice and A Living Wage,ed. Harlan Beckley. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996; Ryan, John A. The Church and Socialism, and Other Essays. Washington, DC: The University Press, 1919; Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. London: Penguin Books, 1986[1776]; Smith, Adam. Theory of the Moral Sentiments. Amherst, NY: Promotheus Books, 2000[1759]; Tanner, Kathyrn. Economy of Grace. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005; Tawney, R. H. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. With a New Introduction by Adam Seligman. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998[1926]; Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Economic Justice for All. 1986. Available at: www.osjspm.org/economic_justice_for_all.aspx; Weber,

Christian Zionism | 89 Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Scribner, 1958.

Jonathan Rothchild

CHRISTIAN ZIONISM Christian Zionism shares many goals with Jewish Zionism. Historically they have both worked steadfastly for the establishment of an independent Jewish state, and been ferocious defenders of Israel. However, Christian Zionism, as opposed to Jewish Zionism, has been motivated by the prophetic expectations of dispensationalism, which anticipated the return of the Jews to Israel as part of the end time drama. To this end, Christian Zionists associate the creation, defense, and expansion of Israel’s territory as a necessary precursor to Christ’s return. The Israeli government has exploited this belief for its own political advancement in the United States, even though the dispensationalist scenario ultimately envisions the mass murder of Jews on an enormous scale. Critics of Christian Zionism question the morality of working for an end that envisions the death of Jews that dwarfs the Holocaust, as well as the tendency of Christian Zionists to blindly support the Israeli government. Critics also question Christian Zionists’ abandonment of Palestinian Christians in the occupied territories, and the possibility that their inflexibility toward a negotiated settlement with Palestinians may ultimately lead to a less secure Israel because of future demographic conditions. INTRODUCTION In 2008 John McCain, Republican nominee for president, announced that he was rejecting the support of Pastor John Hagee. Hagee had said in a sermon that “God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. . . . God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel” (Stein 2008). The inference that Hitler was an agent of God’s will, and that the Holocaust was a part of a divine plan, shocked Americans. McCain quickly distanced himself saying, “I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable” (Reston and Silverstein 2008). Yet oddly, days later, Hagee received support from an unusual source. Several prominent Jews defended Hagee’s statement. Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg said Mr. Hagee’s “words were twisted and used to attack him for being anti-Semitic.” Scheinberg defended Hagee, saying he had “interpreted a biblical verse in a way not very different from several legitimate Jewish authorities. Viewing Hitler as acting completely outside of God’s plan is to suggest that God was powerless to stop the Holocaust, a position quite unacceptable to any religious Jew or Christian” (Duin 2008). Such a strong defense might seem mysterious to the uninitiated, for both Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists the connections are clear: Christian Zionism’s steadfast support for Israel is grounded in the logic of

90

|

Christian Zionism

dispensationalism, and the relationship between Jewish Zionism and Christian Zionism. By understanding the connections within these seemingly disparate groups, Hagee’s words, and his unexpected defender’s comments, are quite ordinary. HISTORY OF ZIONISM An understanding of Jewish Zionism is required to understand Christian Zionism. It is important to recognize that Zionism differs from Christian Zionism. Zionism is a movement that came out of Europe in the nineteenth century. Its most famous founder was Theodore Herzl. Herzl wrote Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in 1886. Herzl rejected the assimilationist aspect of European Judaism, which sought to integrate into European life. Herzl was profoundly influenced by the Dreyfus Affair in which a Jewish officer in France was tried and convicted for spying, even though the charges proved to be baseless. The Dreyfus Affair set off pogroms throughout Europe, and the promise of safety through assimilation of Jews into mainstream European life disappeared. In the wake of the Dreyfus affair, Herzl rejected the notion that Jews could assimilate in Gentile countries, or that small groups of settlers should migrate to Palestine and set up communities. Both these approaches were ultimately failed experiments from Herzl’s perspective. The only approach left, argued Herzl, was to establish a new Jewish homeland. Herzl was optimistic about the possibilities for success. The nations of Europe did not want the Jews anyway, he reasoned, so they would only be too happy to ship them off to somewhere else. The question, of course, was where? Zionism fastened on the ancestral homeland of Palestine as their desired place of residence. The fact that previous European groups that had settled in Palestine had not found a warm welcome from the resident Jews, and that the Ottoman empire that currently controlled the territory was adamantly opposed to Jewish expansion in the area, did not deter most Zionists. Herzl was more realistic seeing that the Turks were intransigent regarding Palestine. He suggested in the 1903 Zionist Congress that it consider Uganda, which was part of the British Empire, and which Britain had signaled it might be willing to make a Jewish state. The resulting uproar among the attendees quickly had Herzl retreating from the suggestion and returning to a position of Palestine as the only acceptable Jewish state. Herzl was a tireless advocate for his cause, moving from capital to capital making his case. He ultimately died an early death at age 44. Timothy P. Weber has noted the various obstacles within the Jewish community that Zionism faced: Socialists objected to the way Zionism drained off Jewish money and energy from their causes. Ultra-orthodox Jews preferred to wait for God to reestablish Israel through the coming of the Messiah rather than engage in human schemes for doing so. Assimilated Jews refused to forsake their hard-earned status in European society for what they considered a sentimental dream. . . . Clearly, not all Jews welcomed or accepted Zionism’s dream of a Jewish state. (Weber 2005, 99)

Christian Zionism | 91

Thus, while Zionism had its advocates, among many Jews it was a minority position alternately considered fantastic or dangerous. It is perhaps also notable that for Herzl this was not a religiously oriented endeavor. In fact, as noted above, some of his most ardent critics were from the Jewish religious community. But for Herzl, the argument was not about religion, but about the preservation of the Jewish people. Even in his discussion of Palestine, he commends Palestine as an appropriate homeland, not because of religious reasons, but rather because of the positive impact this would have on getting other Jews to join the movement. In fact he specifically rejects all “theocratic” impulses, and affirms religious freedom (belief and disbelief) for all. In the end, his argument centers on a place free from anti-Semitism, rather than on the Abrahamic promise. Things looked more positive for Zionism after the British took control of Palestine from the Turks following World War I. The British had promised to pursue the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Yet after the war, Jewish immigration to Palestine was soon restricted following Arab revolts in the area. Eventually, Britain changed its position again and increased its immigration limits. During the Second World War, Jewish immigration picked up again, but was still restricted. Arab riots and revolts during this period continued to cause problems, and Britain struggled to find some way to deal with the situation, eventually earning the enmity of British Zionists, and resulting in an assassination of a British Lord by the Zionist underground. This act was quickly condemned by the Zionist leadership, and perpetrators and collaborators were turned over to the British. However, the aftermath of World War II, and the horrendous atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis during the Holocaust was the final event that catapulted Zionism to the realization of a Jewish state in Palestine. While Zionists contend that eventually, even without the Holocaust, a Jewish homeland would have been established, even they concede that the collective horror the Holocaust engendered shifted world opinion in their favor. And thus, in November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly passed Resolution 181 in which a Jewish homeland was created in Palestine. The resolution was a high-minded document that opted to create two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab, and put Jerusalem under U.N. jurisdiction. It was shortly after this, in May 1948, Israel declared its existence as an independent state. The path of Zionism had now hit its most notable success. Of course the path would not be simple; Israel as a state would endure several wars for its existence that in the end would increase its territorial holdings. With the significant increase in land taken in the 1967 Six Day War, a new form of Zionism came to prominence: Religious Zionism. Religious Zionism undoubtedly had played a part in the Zionist longings of many advocates, even if spokespeople like Herzl avoided it. But after the 1967 war, Israel controlled all of Jerusalem, Sinai, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. The result of this is that Israel now held the land known in biblical times as Galilee, Judea and Samaria. In May of 1967, Rabbi Z. Y. Kook, shortly before the Six Day War, proclaimed the state of Israel as “the very fulfillment of the messianic ideal, precisely as it was envisioned by the Prophets” (Aran, 268). Israel’s acquisition of the lands of the Bible was therefore justified religiously. The orthodox objection in the beginning

92

|

Christian Zionism

days of the Zionism that the reestablishment of the land was the duty of the Messiah and could not be usurped by earthly institutions was eliminated, as the state was now ordained to fulfill precisely those messianic duties. Kook then began the first attempts at establishing settlements in the occupied territories, but was not content with the acquisitions of the Six Day War, but instead demanded the “true whole Land of Israel” be obtained. However in 1973, things turned again. After territorial losses in the Yom Kippur War, religious Zionists saw a challenge to their faith. They understood it as a time of God’s testing, and presented themselves as the faithful who would withstand the temptation. They proclaimed an end to the messianic status of the secular state, and proclaimed themselves as the rightful heirs of the Zionist movement. It was then, in 1974, that Gush Emunim (The Block of the Faithful in Israel) was established. It began as a protest movement, but soon became a political force of its own, focused on keeping the land and establishing new settlements in the occupied territories. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EVANGELICALISM TO ZIONISM A cursory understanding of the history of Jewish Zionism is important as a backdrop to Christian Zionism as the two will ultimately join forces in common cause. Christian Zionism, likewise, is committed to the territorial preservation and expansion of the state of Israel. Like Jewish Zionism, it focuses on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and like religious Jewish Zionism it believes that such a Jewish state is the fulfillment of the biblical promise. Yet the history of Christian Zionism is much different, as are some of its base motivations. The history of Christian Zionism begins formally with the teachings of John Nelson Darby. Darby developed Dispensationalism, which argued the Bible divided history into ages or “dispensations.” The first five ages reflected the Hebrew Bible until Christ. The Sixth was the age of the Church, and the Seventh the Millennial Reign of Christ at the end of time. There was a gap between the sixth and seventh dispensations, however, as the Jews failed to recognize Jesus as their messiah. This began what was called “The Great Parenthesis,” a period of time between the sixth and seventh dispensations that would end with the rapture, and the seven-year tribulation culminating in the battle of Armageddon and the return of Christ. The key to dispensationalism’s relationship to Christian Zionism is its rejection of “replacement theology.” Replacement theology held that the Church had become the new Israel, the new chosen people, and that the Jews were thereby no longer relevant for the history of salvation. The prophecies and promises that were given to Judaism were thus transferred to the Church. Dispensationalism denounced such a position. It was, in fact, Judaism’s refusal to accept Jesus as Messiah that opened the great parenthesis, and it would be the Jewish return to the land of Israel, which would signal the impending closure of the great parenthesis. Thus, dispensationalism had a large stake in Zionism from its very inception. The return of Jews to Palestine, and the reconstitution of the state of Israel, was an essential part of the dispensationalist chronology. In 1891, American

Christian Zionism | 93

dispensationalist William E. Blackstone called for the restoration of Palestine to the Jews in light of the persecution of Jews by the Czar. He circulated a petition signed by prominent people including senators, congressmen, mayors, and even the chief justice of the Supreme Court. While the Harrison administration disregarded the request, and some Jewish Americans actively opposed it, the petition showed the strength dispensationalism and its Christian Zionist agenda was gaining in the states. History also encouraged Christian Zionists. When Britain took Jerusalem from the Turks and promoted the Balfour Declaration, dispensationalists cheered, as well as Jewish Zionists. Though the actual founding of the state of Israel was further off than dispensationalists expected, dispensationalists were confident that such establishment was only a matter of time. The dispensationalist agenda has several components beyond the creation of a Jewish nation. Dispenationalists were also keen to convert Jews to Christianity. Part of the dispensationalist chronology coupled the Jewish return to Palestine with mass conversions of the Jews. Christian missions were therefore established early on in Palestine after the British took control of the area. This desire to convert the Jews also played in to how dispensationalists viewed the Holocaust. While dispensationalists were initially ambivalent toward Hitler in the early 1930s, when they perceived his attacks not against Jews per se, but against Communists who were also incidentally Jewish, by the late 1930s dispensationalists were clear about Hitler’s anti-Semitic and murderous end. Yet they also understood such persecutions as part of God’s plan, and the pattern God had used in the Old Testament to chasten his people. As with the Babylonians and the Assyrians before them, God was using Hitler to punish the Jews for their lack of faith, though this time it was their lack of faith in Jesus that had provoked God’s wrath. Dispensationalists believed that “the spreading crisis had two unintended consequences: It had made Jews more open than ever to the claims of Christ, and it had increased their longing for a Jewish homeland in Palestine” (Weber 2005, 148). Thus, when Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, it was a cataclysmic triumph for dispensationalists, the vindication of everything they had believed. Though at that time the entirety of the biblical lands had not been acquired, the very establishment of a key point of the dispensationalist chronology represented a tremendous moment of confirmation for the dispensationalists, and a reinforcement of its Christian Zionism. Thus, dispensationalists confidently predicted that it was only a matter of time until Israel expanded its holdings. Such confidence proved merited as the Six Day War increased Israel’s territory to biblical proportions. Though dispensationalists still remained unsatisfied, they expected Israel to encompass the land from the Nile to the Euphrates River, they saw God’s hand clearly at work in both the defense and expansion of the nation of Israel. CURRENT STATE OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISM Since the heyday of Christian Zionism after the Six Day War things have been mixed for Christian Zionism. The 1973 Yom Kippur War ended with

94

|

Christian Zionism

Israel losing some of the territory captured in 1967. Likewise, the Camp David Accords returned Sinai to Egypt, and removed Israeli settlements from the area. Christian Zionists were disconcerted by both. Hal Lindsey, prominent dispensationalist prophecy writer, predicted that the Camp David Accords would not last. His prophetic ability in this regard was found wanting. From the other end, Israel soon recognized the potential ally in fundamentalists. The Israeli tourism board arranged free trips for Evangelical pastors to the Holy Lands, and taught the clerics how they could conduct tours for their parishioners. Israeli politicians courted major evangelical preachers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Israel understood that evangelicals could be motivated allies for them in the United States, allies who were compelled by an ideology that advocated the strengthening of Israel and allowed for no compromise with its neighbors. Political groups like the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel, Christians for Israel and the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem were established by Christian Zionists to create public pressure in support of Israel. The marriage between Christian Zionism and Israel has been an odd one. Christian Zionists who have historically held that conversion of the Jews was necessary, have often had to give up such notions in order to work with the Israeli government. In fact, several of these organizations explicitly disavow any attempt to missionize in Israel. In contradiction with the position of previous Christian Zionist groups, modern groups have seen fit to leave the conversion of the Jewish people in Israel “to God.” On the other hand, there is a certain amount of cold calculation on the part of Israel as it seeks to exploit its connections with Evangelicals. While it is not necessary that Christian Zionists are dispensationalist (christianzionist.org explicitly rejects the notion that their position is based on “end-times prophecy”), certainly a great majority of Christians interested in biblical prophecy are Christian Zionists precisely because of the role of Israel in the final drama. Still, Israeli leadership seems to discount the predictions of doom and destruction that dispensationalists see in the future for Israel. More recently, things have been far more complicated for Christian Zionists. The moves of the Olmert government, particularly the dismantling of the Amona settlement in the West Bank, have proved difficult for Christian Zionists to support. Additionally, the “Middle East Road Map” propounded in the first term of the Bush administration was seen as giving up far too much. The Road Map called for the removal of even more settlements in the West Bank, as well as the return of land to the Palestinians as part of the two-state solution. Such positions have been denounced by Christian Zionists like Gary Bauer. CRITICISM OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISM While Christian Zionism has a stable list of advocates and organizations in the United States that continue to support its issues and lobby both churches and congress on its behalf, it has not been without critics. Many critics feel that

Christian Zionism | 95

the problem with Christian Zionism is that it is far too uncritical of the Israeli government. There is a confusion, claim its critics, that support of Israel equals support for any Israeli government action. As the Israeli government moves towards a negotiated settlement of the contested territories, which will likely include ceding some of those territories, this equivalency between “Israel” and the policies of the Israeli government is breaking down for Christian Zionists. Though when it comes to human rights abuses of Israel in the occupied territories, Christian Zionists most often still support Israel without question. More centrally, however, critics of Christian Zionism argue that the movement is unethical, insofar as its support of Israel is based on dispensationalist prophetic expectations. Gary DeMar and Gary North (both Evangelicals, but not dispensationalists) have argued that it is ultimately morally outrageous that Evangelicals should support Israel, because they see it as hastening the return of Christ when part of that end times scenario is an even greater holocaust of Jews than ever seen before (Demar 2001; North 2000). The dispensationalist chronology promises that Jews in Israel will be massacred by the millions by the Antichrist. That Christian Zionists who believe that this is the ultimate result of their actions continue to work to ensure its eventual occurrence, strikes these critics as demonically Machiavellian. Other critics have pointed out that Christian Zionism abandons those Christians that live in the Occupied Territories. By steadfastly supporting the expansionist policies of Israel, and supporting Israeli oppressive actions in the Palestinian areas, those Palestinian Christians that suffer under such policies are summarily forgotten. While Christians in the Palestinian territories are a minority (and estimates indicate their numbers are declining), they are rarely mentioned in Christian Zionist literature and speeches. Critics charge that Christian Zionists have abandoned their Christian brothers and sisters in the occupied territories because it is not politically (or prophetically) expedient. Finally, its is possible that Christian Zionism’s advocacy for continual Israeli expansion and resistance to a two-state solution might, in the end, have the opposite effect than the Zionists expect by making Israel less secure. The reason Rabin, Sharon, and Olmert have refused to give up the notion of an independent Palestinian state is because they understand the “demographic time bomb” that awaits them if they do not. As of 2006 the combined population of Israel included the occupied territories was roughly 10.5 million people. In terms of demographic proportions 50.3 percent of that population was Jewish and 49.7 percent was Arab. Currently, Palestinian birthrates far exceed Jewish birthrates. At current levels, Arab peoples in Israel and the occupied territories will outnumber Jews in the near future (some estimates put this as early as 2010, others at 2020). This leaves a united Israel two unpalatable choices; they could enfranchise their Arab citizens and then live as a minority in their own country. Or they could proceed to minority rule of a majority population. Neither of these choices is in keeping with the Zionist ideals or democratic traditions of Israel. The Christian Zionist unyielding perspective, then, could lead to an even less stable Israel, as it has to confront the demographic realities that await it.

96

|

Christian Zionism

See also Genocide; Just War; Right-Wing Extremism. Further Reading: Aran, Gideon. “Jewish Zionist Fundamentalism: The Block of the Faithful (Gosh Emunim). In Fundamentalism Observed, ed. Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991; Bennet, James. “The World: Crossing Jordan; The Exit That Isn’t on Bush’s ‘Road Map.’ ” New York Times, May 18, 2003; Boyer, Paul. When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Belknap Press, 1994; Christian-Zionism.org. “Joint Response to ‘The Jerusalem Declaration of Christian Zionism.’ ” Available at: http://www.christian-zionism.org/analy sis_articles_body.asp?Title=Joint+Response+to+%22The+Jerusalem+Declaration+of+ Christian+Zionism%22; DeMar, Gary. End Times Fiction A Biblical Consideration Of The Left Behind Theology. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001; Duin, Julia. “Jews defend Hagee’s words.” The Washington Times, May 24, 2008; Durham, Martin. “Evangelical Protestantism and foreign policy in the United States after September 11.” Patterns of Prejudice 38, no. 2 (June 2004): 145–158. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=aph&AN=13133232&site=ehost-live; “A History of Zionism and the Creation of Israel—the Holocaust, the Conflict and the claims of anti-Zionists.” Available at: http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_history.htm; Inbari, Motti. “Fundamentalism in Crisism—The Response of the Gush Emunim Rabbinical Authorities to the Theological Dilemmas Raised by Israel’s Disengagement Plan.” Journal of Church and State 49, no. 4 (Autumn 2007): 697–717. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=29385380&site=ehost-live; Kershner, Isabel. “Palestinian Christians Look Back on a Year of Troubles.” The New York Times, March 11, 2007. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/world/middleeast/11christians. html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=palestinian+christians&st=nyt&oref=slogin; Leaming, Jeremy. “Middle East Offensive.” Church and State 59, no. 2 (February 2006): 13–14. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20246431&site=eho st-live; Lindsey, Hal. The Late Great Planet Earth. 22nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972; Middle East Documents Balfour Declaration.” Available at: http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm; “Middle East Math.” New York Times, September 12, 2003. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06EFD9103BF 931A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=17&sq=palestinian+demographics&st=nyt; North, Gary. 2000. “Gary North: Unnanounced Reason for Evangelical Support of Israel.” July 19, 2000. Available at: http://www.tks.org/GaryNorth.htm; “Population Statistics/ Demographics of Israel-Palestine.” Israeli-Palestinian ProCon.org. Available at: http:// www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html#sources6; Reston, Maeve and Stuart Silverstein. “John McCain repudiates pastors’ support.” The Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2008. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-namccain23–2008may23,0,5141859.story; Rossing, Barbara R. The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in The Book of Revelation. New ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2005; Stein, Sam. “McCain Backer Hagee Said Hitler Was Fulfilling God’s Will (AUDIO)— Politics on The Huffington Post.” Huffington Post, May 21, 2008. Available at: http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/mccain-backer-hagee-said_n_102892.html; “UN General Assembly Resolution 181: Palestine Partition Plan of 1947.” Available at: http://www. mideastweb.org/181.htm; Wagner, Donald. “The Evangelical-Jewish Alliance.” Available at: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2717 (accessed January 2008); Weber, Timothy P. 2005. On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.

Randall Reed

Civil Disobedience |

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE When it comes to preserving public order, religion has a good reputation. Political theorists from Niccolo Machiavelli to Karl Marx have noted how religion encourages people to obey the law and submit to authorities. Political leaders have, at various times and places, actually recruited religious groups as immigrants, hoping their habits of industry, thrift, and obedience would spread among the citizenry. But religion has also been the inspiration for some of history’s most dramatic acts of disobedience, where people motivated by their devotion to God have chosen not to comply with the law. Some political leaders have even found themselves being ejected from their positions of power as a result of religiously inspired civil disobedience. People disobey the law for a variety of motives, most of which are outside the focus of this article. Criminal disobedience involves what legal philosophers call mens rea or evil intent (literally, evil mind). Criminal disobedience is thus motivated by a desire to gain something unfairly for oneself, or malice toward someone else. One might also violate a law ignorantly. This is a violation, and might bring punishment on the wrongdoer, since ignorance is no excuse for violating the law, but it isn’t strictly accurate to say the person deliberately disobeyed the law because they weren’t aware of what the law commanded. A third reason for disobeying the law is because the actor is trying to overthrow a regime through violence. This kind of revolutionary disobedience as part of a strategy of warfare is better described as rebellion or civil war. The focus here is on civil disobedience: deliberate refusal to obey the law because the law is seen as commanding something that violates the conscience, or because the regime that enacted the law is considered to be illegitimate. Since one of the purposes of civil disobedience is to highlight the injustice of a law or a regime, generally those who civilly disobey will not attempt to elude arrest, or resist it, and will submit to any punishments meted out by the legal system. This allows the entire impact of the law to be demonstrated as clearly as possible, and steers the confrontation away from violence or civil war. While some who have used violence have sought to describe their actions as civil disobedience, normally the term applies only to nonviolent activity, distinguishing it from terrorism. Civil disobedience is commonly linked with the notion of active nonviolence. RELIGION AND OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW Secular legal philosophers struggle with whether there is an ethical obligation to obey the law. If there is such a duty, on what might it be based? Social contract theory, one of the dominant schools of thought among political ethicists, bases the duty on a mutual obligation undertaken by citizens to support the rule of law in order to avoid anarchy. Utilitarians note the benefits of social agreements and how they contribute to order, but will on occasion find that the harm done by obeying a law outweighs the modest marginal damage done to society by a single instance of disobedience. Kantians might suggest we should obey the law

97

98

|

Civil Disobedience

in all cases because to disobey the law in one instance invites everyone else to do the same, which would lead to anarchy. On the surface, religion looks a lot like philosophy or ethics, a matter of propositions about truth and duty, and right and wrong. The major religions all have strong propositions describing obedience to law as being the right thing to do, regardless of whether one is going to get caught. The classic example from Christianity comes from the book of Romans in the Bible: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good; but if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (Romans 13: 1–5) The apostle Paul, the author of Romans, builds his argument on the most fundamental teaching in most religions: God is the Creator and ruler of the earth. Out of love for us, God ordained government to preserve order, and offer the stable environment we need to be able to provide for our futures and our families. Therefore, Paul urges us not to submit so the rulers can do their jobs for our benefit. This part of Paul’s exhortation parallels a social contract approach to law—we obey to support the law’s ability to preserve order, because our neighbors (and the authorities) are counting on us not to act as outlaws. But Paul also suggests that God uses the governing authorities to steer us toward proper behavior. Paul is writing as a Christian, but also as a Jew. His point that government is instituted by God echoes the history of Israel in the Old Testament, where God twice explicitly designed and established government for Israel, first in the Judges model, and then as a monarchy. In the Old Testament, God also used pagan kings and empires as tools to carry out divine punishments against Israel, in essence restoring order when Israel had allowed it to decay. In Islam, the duty to obey the law also draws on the unique history of the faith, in which its founder is also a victorious political leader. From the outset, then, obedience to the civil authority of the Prophet and his successor caliphs is tied to obeying them as religious authorities in a more explicit way than it has been for most of the history of other faiths. In addition, Islam has a special emphasis on the world-wide spiritual community of Moslems, the umma, which is both religious and (at least ideally) political. So breaking the peace of the umma by breaking the law is an affront not only to the physical and economic welfare of the community, but to the ideal spiritual community through which God draws people to the truth.

Civil Disobedience |

The duty to submit to the governing authorities is, therefore, profound. It is not a light duty, but one that applies daily and requires conscientious attention, not only for our own sakes, but because the lives and fortunes of our neighbors depend on it. However, religious faith is more than propositions about what is true and what we ought to do. The devoutly religious person not only believes propositions, she also submits to God, and thus enters a relationship with a person who is sovereign over her. She gives up part, or all of her own autonomy, her own independence and freedom to choose for herself. Islam especially stresses this aspect of faith. The word Islam itself means submission. The convert becomes a Moslem by uttering the shehada, which expresses his commitment to submitting to God. Other faiths also require submission to the will of God, making it a central feature of the devout life. In practice (and often theology), submission to God includes submission to human authorities within the structure of the religion who have the authority to speak for God or instruct about divine truth. Having immersed themselves in the discipline of submitting to another person (God), and often to other humans who are seen as God’s deputies, the devoutly religious person has practiced setting aside his personal will to do the will of someone else. This familiarity with principled submission is helpful to the political leader seeking submission to the state and its laws. When the habit of principled submission is added to the proposition that one ought to obey the law, and when the political leader claims or is given the endorsement of God as a legitimate authority, the predictable result is that most of the adherents of the faith will see the obligation to obey the law as a religious duty. Obeying the law becomes one of the spiritual disciplines the devout person exercises as part of his daily life. RELIGION AND CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE The believer’s duty to obey the law has buried within it, however, the possibility of civil disobedience. The ultimate duty of a believer is to obey God. If a situation arises in which the commands of the law conflict with the commands of God, the believer may conclude that her duty to the law is not as great as her duty to God. The three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam— all have stories of this kind of civil disobedience prominent in their traditions. For example, Jews celebrate the liberation of the nation of Israel from its slavery in Egypt, including refusing to turn back from their journey of exile when the Pharaoh’s army reaches them at the shores of the Red Sea. They also recall the stories of Daniel, and of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who refused to worship the Babylonian king; and the revival of the kingdom of Israel by the Maccabees, a rebellion that was started when the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV, outlawed Jewish religious practices, and some Jews, including the Maccabee family, refused to comply. The early Christians refused to obey orders not to spread their faith, often leading to their imprisonment or martyrdom. Islam as

99

100

|

Civil Disobedience

a distinct faith emerges out of a similar refusal by Mohammed to refrain from preaching monotheism in polytheistic Mecca. When the believer finds himself torn between a general duty to obey the law, and the deeper duty to obey God, there are several ways she might resolve the tension. One approach is to view the world as alienated from God, with different rules for the world than for one’s relationship to God. This two-kingdoms approach would limit the full authority of God’s ethical commandments to the believer’s private life, or perhaps to relationships with other believers in the context of the religious community. In public life, the believer might set aside some of the demands of his faith, and adhere instead to the secular standards of his community (including the law). The two-kingdoms believer might justify this by considering God’s commands as ideals to be aspired to, but the world’s rules as part of the practical side of life demanding compromises to get along. Or she might trace the commands of the law back to God’s sovereignty and conclude that it was God’s will, in this case, to fall below the normal divine standard in order to help the government accomplish its role as guarantor of civil order. Under the two-kingdoms approach, the believer has to balance the demands of two different ethical standards: the pragmatic secular standard embodied in the law, and the ideal religious standard embodied in the faith. Another approach is to obey what is seen as the command of God, even though this involves disobeying the human law. Here the believer sees God’s commands as authoritative over all aspects of life, including her public life in the secular world. If there seem to be two kingdoms in life, one religious and one secular, it is only because the secular is in rebellion against the authority of God. To give the secular law priority over God’s commandments is to join the rebellion. Sometimes the authority of the human law is discounted because of some flaw in the lawmaker. The signers of the United States’ Declaration of Independence, most of who were either Christians or Deists, described rebellion against the King of England as their divine duty, stemming from what they saw as the king’s abuses of the colonists’ rights. The Declaration of Independence argues that the American colonies were under no obligation to obey the king’s law because it had become so badly flawed and oppressive that it no longer served its function as a protector of order and justice in the community. While the American Revolution is not considered a case of civil disobedience, for reasons discussed below, it does illustrate one approach to the decision to disobey the law. In 1963 Martin Luther King, Jr., a Baptist Christian pastor, went to jail in Birmingham, Alabama for holding illegal demonstrations for civil rights. When criticized by local pastors for this, King wrote his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” defending the decision to violate the law. He argued that the law had less authority over African Americans, since the political system that produced the law systematically excluded them from participating, even from voting. Since the system in Alabama, and elsewhere in the United States, worked deliberately to deprive African Americans of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, it was illegitimate as to them, and thus not deserving of the fullest respect (King 1964).

Civil Disobedience | 101

Mohandas Gandhi, a Hindu, could make similar claims about the British law in India during the first decades of the twentieth century. Gandhi considered Britain’s colonial rule in India to be inherently illegitimate as the subjugation of one nation by another. However, Gandhi’s rationale for civil disobedience went beyond the injustice of colonial rule. Gandhi had a Hindu understanding of life as a process of perfection. In political conflict, Gandhi stressed the goal of moving ever closer to Truth in how we structure societies and nations. Civil disobedience against the British law was, for Gandhi, a vehicle for drawing the British and the Indians into a mutual dialogue that would allow both nations to emerge having moved closer to the Truth. This would include justice, self-determination, and proper relationships between the two nations. RELIGIOUS APPROACHES TO CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE Among those who choose to disobey the law in order to obey God, there are variations in how disobedience is carried out. Gandhi wanted to conduct India’s campaign for independence in a way that would allow both nations to learn Truth, so the British would not be replaced by a home-grown Indian oppressive regime. This required tactics of civil disobedience that would not only preserve the possibility of dialog with one’s opponents, but might actually bring it about. Gandhi thus ruled out violence against the British on two grounds. First, it would make it harder, or even impossible, for the British to engage in genuine dialog with the independence movement. Unless both sides were willing to listen to, and learn from, each other, the Indian independence movement would not bring about any better understanding of Truth or much improvement in the lives of Indians or British. Second, if the Indians used violence to rid themselves of the British, the experience would change the Indians, making them spiritually more prone to violence and less able to move toward Truth in their political conflicts. In Gandhi’s view, Indian culture was itself plagued by injustices related to caste and poverty. If India’s struggle with the British were violent, it would leave an independent India more susceptible to military rule and dictatorship, more isolated from the British and other potentially helpful allies, and less capable of the kind of robust, democratic political process it would need to overcome its problems. Gandhi’s nonviolence was more than the rejection of lethal force against the British. Because he saw it as a truth-seeking process, he wanted Indian nonviolence to be a tool for sharing truth. The term he coined to describe the process, satyagraha, translates as truth force. Thus, Gandhi aspired to a tactical policy of openness rather than deception, since deception would obscure the truth. He also submitted to the punishments of the British law, despite its illegitimacy in India, as a way of both highlighting the injustice of British rule, and keeping the channels of dialog open with the British. Martin Luther King, Jr. was influenced by Gandhi. But King drew on his Christian faith to recast the goal of civil disobedience. Truth was still an objective, but King stressed building the right kind of relationships between former oppressors

102

|

Civil Disobedience

and those they had oppressed. King saw nonviolent civil disobedience as a tool for building what he called the “beloved community.” King, therefore, also embraced a tactical policy of openness. He also urged his followers to accept suffering without inflicting it, in order to lay the groundwork for reconciliation later. Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a Muslim, was one of Gandhi’s closest allies in the Indian independence movement. Khan came to similar conclusions about how a good Muslim should conduct himself when he encounters unjust laws or regimes. He told his followers “I am going to give you such a weapon that the police and the army will not be able to stand against it. It is the weapon of the Prophet, but you are not aware of it. That weapon is patience and righteousness. No power on earth can stand against it” (Easwaran 1985, 15). Khan has inspired other examples of Islamic nonviolence, including the first intifada conducted by Palestinians against Israeli occupation in the late 1980s, and the efforts of the small Muslim Peacemaker Teams organization in Iraq. Jewish tradition from biblical times emphasizes willingness to accept punishment rather than obey laws requiring Jews to worship other gods, or to refrain from essential Jewish religious practices, such as circumcision and observing the Sabbath. Others have taken a primarily pragmatic approach to their religious duty to disobey the law, seeing it as a powerful tool for political ends. For example, the American Christian academic Walter Wink urges an interpretation of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount that transforms disobedience into a clever tactical ploy to embarrass oppressors (Wink 2008). For example, he sees Jesus’s command to “go the extra mile” as a trick, to get a Roman soldier in trouble for making a civilian carry his pack two miles instead of the one mile allowed by Roman law. This approach can easily take the disobedient one away from truth-seeking and community-building, toward trickery and manipulation, which might be in tension with the standard notions of civil disobedience. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Christian pastor who resisted the rise of the Nazis leading up to and during World War II, rejected both pragmatism and the kind of idealistic visions Gandhi, Kahn, and King embraced (Bonhoeffer 1995). He emphasized God’s sovereignty over everything human, including governments, concluding that nothing should be allowed to interfere with the believer’s direct obedience to God. Bonhoeffer agreed that government was God’s tool to maintain public order, and that public order benefited the spread of the Christian gospel, so that the believer’s basic duty was to obey the law. However, in those exceptional cases where God makes it clear to the believer that His will is in conflict with the law, the believer must set aside every other rule of behavior and do what God commands. According to Bonhoeffer (1995), nothing humans create should be allowed to be a barrier to God’s will. For Bonhoeffer, God’s will overrode his prior pacifist convictions that forbade killing, and would presumably override even Gandhi’s preconceived goals of Truth-seeking, or King’s goal of building the beloved community. Every human attempt to summarize God’s will, must give way to God’s will. In his own case, Bonhoeffer’s sense of God’s sovereignty carried him beyond civil disobedience into rebellion, including joining a plot to kill Hitler.

Civil Disobedience | 103

Bonhoeffer’s insistence upon radical obedience to God’s commands is a possible logical end for all religious ethics that start with the premise of a sovereign God. Most believers, however, temper their absolute duty to obey God with a sense of fallibility, recognizing that they do not perfectly understand God, and sometimes mistake God’s will. There have been enough cases of people committing terrible atrocities in the name of God that most believers are cautious about their own leadings. Thus, it is common for believers to subject possible leadings to a testing process. This might involve seeking confirmation of a leading from a group of fellow believers, such as the Quaker Committee for Clearness. Or the believer might consult a spiritual mentor, as a Moslem might do by seeking a fatwa (a ruling from a recognized spiritual authority). Another way of dealing with the possibility of being mistaken about God’s leading, is to submit to the legal consequences of disobeying a law. Gandhi and King did this regularly, and urged their followers to do the same. Indeed, their insistence upon being open about their plans to disobey the law, and not to resist arrest, was in part because they wanted to submit to the law’s consequences. Even Bonhoeffer acknowledged the necessity of submitting to the judgment of one’s community, not only because he was fallible, but also because he did not have the right to determine for others what God was leading them to do (Bonhoeffer 1995). Bonhoeffer did not always act openly, though. He conducted his plot against Hitler in secret and planted false evidence as an attempt to deceive the Nazis about what he was doing. This may have been motivated by his desire to shield his family from persecution, and his co-conspirators from the death penalty that eventually took his own life. This necessity for secrecy and deceit would presumably have been enough to convince a Gandhi or a King not to join Bonhoeffer’s plot to kill Hitler. Perhaps it would make sense to use that kind of covert behavior as a marker of the boundary between civil disobedience and rebellion. CONCLUSION Religious believers who normally feel a divine duty to obey the law, also may feel led to disobey it on grounds of religious principle or conscience. A history of civil disobedience to the law can be found in many religious traditions, justified on a variety of grounds, but generally stemming from a commitment to obey God as the ultimate sovereign over individuals and nation-states. See also Just War; Sanctuary Movement. Further Reading: Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc., Touchstone Edition, 1995; Easwaran, Eknath. A Man to Match His Mountains: Badshah Khan, Soldier of Islam. Rifton, NY: Plough Publishing House, 1985; Erikson, Erik H. Gandhi’s Truth. W. W. Norton, 1993; Golinkin, David. “The Jewish Attitude Towards Non-Violent Protest and Civil Disobedience.” Available at: http://www.judaism.about.com/library/3_ask rabbi_sijs/bl_47_protest.htm (accessed April 15, 2008); Juergensmeyer, Mark. Gandhi’s Way: A Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,

104

|

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America 2002; King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In Why We Can’t Wait. Signet Classic, 1964: 64–84; Nimer, Mohammed Abu. “Nonviolence in the Islamic Context.” Fellowship of Reconciliation (September/October 2004); Suber, Peter. “Civil Disobedience.” In Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia, ed. Christopher Gray. New York: Garland Pub. Co, 1999: 110–113; Thoreau, Henry David. On Civil Disobedience. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998; Wink, Walter. “Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way.” Available at: http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm (accessed April 16, 2008).

Ron Mock CLERGY SEX ABUSE SCANDAL IN AMERICA Beginning in the mid-1980s, a series of court cases began to reveal the extent of sexual abuse committed by clergy in various religious contexts. While the popular press has tended to associate the clergy abuse scandals as a “Catholic” issue, in fact, the problem is widespread in many religious contexts, including non-Christian religions as well. Although the focus here is on the crisis in the American Catholic Church, in 1990, a survey conducted by the Center for Ethics and Social Policy at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA, discovered that 10 percent of clergy from across many Protestant Christian denominations that were surveyed said that they had been “sexually active” with an adult parishioner. It is believed that sexual abuse among rabbis approximates to that found in the Protestant clergy. According to one study, 73 percent of women rabbis report instances of sexual harassment. Sadly, an attempt at damage control has kept things quiet. Fear of lawsuits and bad publicity have dictated an atmosphere of hushed voices, and outrage against those who dare to break ranks by speaking out. In the 1990s, information started to become public about sexual abuse of children in Hare Krishna–movement schools of the 1970s and 1980s. As universal as the problem of religious leaders and personnel sexually abusing the faithful is, in America, the problem became most widely known (perhaps unfairly) when it was connected to the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, about four percent of the Catholic clergy that served between 1950 and 2002 sexually molested minors. Statistically, that is about average for the American population in general. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FACES A CRISIS On October 18, 1984, a grand jury in Louisiana returned a 34-count criminal indictment against Gilbert Gauthe (GO-tay), a Catholic priest of the Diocese of Lafayette. The charges included 11 counts of aggravated crimes against nature, 11 counts of committing sexually immoral acts with minors, 11 counts of taking pornographic photographs of juveniles, and a single count of aggravated rape, sodomizing a child under the age of 12. In an arrangement with prosecutors, Gauthe pled guilty to multiple counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of child pornography, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The family of one of the victims

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America |

sued the Diocese of Lafayette and was awarded $1.25 million. It was the first time in history that details of a Catholic priest’s sexual abuse of children was brought to the public’s attention, and it marked the beginning of what became the most horrifying and damaging scandal ever to hit the Catholic Church in America. The year following Gauthe’s conviction, his attorney, Raymond Mouton, along with Dominican Fr. Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer on the staff of the Vatican’s representative to the United States, and Fr. Michael Peterson, president of St. Luke’s Institute, a resident treatment facility for troubled clergy, prepared a 100page report titled The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner. The report was presented to the Committee on Research and Pastoral Practices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/U.S. Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC). The committee was headed by the archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law. Every diocesan bishop in the United States received a copy of the report. After studying the document, the NCCB/USCC committee concluded that the issues raised by the report, and the report’s recommendations, had been adequately addressed by the bishops’ conference, and no further action on the report was taken. The task of responding to allegations of sexual abuse by clergy was therefore left up to the individual dioceses. THE BISHOPS’ RESPONSE For the next 15 years the NCCB/USCC (in 2001 the conference was renamed the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or USCCB) continued to study the problem. In 1993 the conference formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse to make recommendations to the dioceses. These recommendations included: Dealing Effectively with Priests Who Sexually Abuse Minors and Others The committee sought to assist with diocesan policies, evaluate treatment centers, provide education through topical articles by competent authors, and act as a clearinghouse in related matters. Assisting Victims/Survivors The committee provided articles focused on victims/survivors of clergy sexual abuse, along with a special section in the report on diocesan policies, and meets with representatives of various national organizations and with individual victims/survivors. It also developed a 42-page article entitled Responding to Victims-Survivors. Addressing Morale of Bishops and Priests The committee provided focal points to deal with criticism, and presented regular reports to Bishops to help deal effectively with allegations

105

106

|

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America

of clergy sexual misconduct. It also urged the Committees for Bishops’ Life and Ministry and Priestly Life and Ministry, the National Federation of Priests’ Councils, and the National Organization for Continuing Education of Roman Catholic Clergy to address this concern. Screening Candidates for Ministry Working with the Committee on Priestly Formation and the National Catholic Educational Association, the committee surveyed seminaries on psychological screening and formation of candidates for ordination, focusing on issues of sexuality. Twenty-nine of 36 diocesan seminaries and 24 out of 42 college seminaries responded. They reported varying levels of psychological screening and formation of candidates. The committee proposed specific goals for consideration by the conference. Assisting Bishops in Assessing Possible Reassignment The issue of reassigning offending clergy to non-parish ministry remained unresolved due to canon laws protecting the rights of clergy. (USCCB Office of Media Relations report on the bishops’ efforts to combat clergy sexual abuse against minors, see www.usccb.org/comm/ kit5.shtml). In 1997, a jury awarded 11 plaintiffs $119.6 million in a record judgment against the Diocese of Dallas, Texas. Later that same year, the diocese settled another sexual abuse lawsuit, agreeing to pay five victims $5 million. The following year, the diocese agreed to pay $23.4 million to eight former altar boys, and the family of a ninth, who say they were sexually victimized by a priest, Rudolph Kos, who was subsequently removed from the priesthood by the Vatican and is serving a life sentence in prison. Still, the Catholic clergy sexual abuse scandal in the United States remained a sleeping giant. THE SCANDAL BREAKS Then, on January 6, 2002, the Boston Globe launched a series of articles on the case of John Geoghan (GAY-jen), a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston who had been accused of molesting 130 children, convicted of fondling a 10-year-old boy, and sent to prison. (While in prison, Geoghan was murdered by another inmate.) The Globe investigation revealed a widespread pattern of sexual abuse by priests that was covered up by archdiocesan officials. The ensuing public uproar resulted in the resignation of Boston’s archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, the following December. It became evident that despite years of programs, reports, and directives from the USCCB, the archdiocese had done little to respond to complaints of

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America |

clergy sexual abuse. On the contrary, archdiocesan documents made public, and testimony by victims and their families, showed an unwillingness by archdiocesan officials to address the issue of clergy sexual abuse of minors. The report further revealed a pattern of intimidation of victims and their families, and of protection of offending priests. The Pulitzer Prize–winning series sparked a national crisis of epic proportions. In April 2002, Pope John Paul II requested a meeting of all U.S. Cardinals and USCCB officers with Vatican officials in Rome to discuss the situation. In his address to the meeting, the Pope said: The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God. To the victims and their families, wherever they may be, I express my profound sense of solidarity and concern. The meeting concluded with a directive from the Vatican that the American bishops prepare a set of national standards and policies for dealing with the sexual abuse of minors by clergy and other church personnel in the United States. THE DALLAS MEETING The following June, The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People was adopted by the USCCB at their General Meeting in Dallas, Texas, by a vote of 239–13. The Office of Child and Youth Protection is organized to implement the Charter and a National Review Board (NRB) was formed to monitor the function of the office. At its next General Meeting in November, the USCCB adopted the text of the Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons. At its promulgation the following March, the Essential Norms became particular law, binding on all dioceses in the United States. At the same time, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York was commissioned to embark on a descriptive study of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by clergy within the Catholic Church in the United States. All diocesan bishops were directed to cooperate fully with the study. THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM In February 2004, the National Review Board (NRB) released A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States. The NRB report was combined with the findings of the John Jay College report entitled The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States. The John Jay study found that between 1950 and 2002, 10,667 individuals made allegations of sexual abuse against 4,392 priests, roughly four percent of the 109,694 priests serving during those

107

108

|

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America

52 years. During that time, approximately 3,300 allegations were not investigated because the accused clergymen were dead, and another 1,000 or so claims proved to be unsubstantiated. The report estimates that the total cost to the church for payment to victims, for their treatment and the treatment of priests, and legal expenses for defending lawsuits, exceeded $533 million. The study also found that more abuse occurred in the 1970s than any other decade, peaking in 1980, and that approximately one-third of all cases were reported in 2002–2003, and two-thirds have been reported since 1993. Prior to 1993, only one-third of cases were known to the church officials. The ages of the victims vary widely: 27.3 percent were between ages 15 and 17; 50.9 percent were between the ages 11 and 14; 16 percent were between ages 8 and 10; and 5.8 percent were under age 7. Of the victims, 81 percent were male and 19 percent female. It was found that 149 priests caused 27 percent of allegations. More than half of the accused priests had only one victim, while 3.5 percent of the priests were accused by more than 10 victims. The following are some highlights of the National Review Board report. • There were inadequate screening procedures by dioceses and seminaries to weed out candidates unfit for the priesthood. • There was inadequate seminary formation in the area of celibacy and sexuality. • There is need of further study concerning the sexual orientation of priests, since 81 percent of the abuse was same-sex in nature. • There is need of further study concerning celibacy, since the instances of sexual abuse reveal a malformation of human sexuality. • There are special issues of spiritual life for bishops and priests, since both the acts of abuse by priests and the failure of bishops to put an end to it were “grievously sinful.” Additionally, the report found that for many bishops, their responses to allegations of abuse “were characterized by moral laxity, excessive leniency, insensitivity, secrecy and neglect.” Among issues it cited regarding the bishops were: • A failure to understand the nature and scope of the abuse and the harm it caused. • A failure to respond adequately to victims, both pastorally and legally. • Making unwarranted presumptions in favor of the priest when assessing allegations. • A culture of clericalism that sought to protect the accused priest. • Aspects of church law that made it difficult to assess criminal penalties even when it was clear the priest had violated the law. • A culture of leniency that failed to recognize the horror of the abuse and the need to condemn it. • An emphasis on secrecy and avoidance of scandal “at all costs.”

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America |

• Failure to report actions that were civil crimes to civil authorities. • Overreliance on corrective therapy, depending on psychologists and psychiatrists to “cure” offenders and make them fit to return to ministry. • Overreliance on attorneys, treating allegations as primarily legal problems rather than problems of pastoral and moral concern. The report acknowledged that some bishops were aware of the serious nature of the problem early on, and spent years trying to convince authorities to change church law so abusers could be taken out of ministry and dealt with more effectively. The study also said that bishops were often ill-served by the therapists and lawyers they depended on for guidance. The report drew particular attention to the bishops that protected abusers, and was very critical of those bishops that failed to act on behalf of victims. Such bishops, the report states, were guilty of neglect and insensitivity toward victims. They not only allowed the abuse to continue, they also spread the abuse and multiplied the number of victims by reassigning molesters to new and unsuspecting parishes. DEVELOPING SAFE ENVIRONMENTS With the publication of The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, 194 out of 195 dioceses and archdioceses in the United States enacted Safe Environment programs designed to prevent further sexual abuse of children. All clergy, religious, and lay church workers, school teachers, and volunteers must submit to fingerprinting and background checks by the FBI and the Department of Justice. Safe Environment classes and workshops are made mandatory for all clergy and lay diocesan, parish, and school personnel. All diocesan and parish personnel must undergo instruction in Mandated Reporting, the legal responsibility of reporting to police any suspicion of sexual abuse of children. Pastoral settings must provide for adequate supervision of adults with children. No adult, clergy or lay, can be left alone or out of sight of another responsible adult while meeting with children. Children must be taught the dangers of sexual abuse by adults, and how to recognize inappropriate behavior by adults. All adults, and especially parents, need to learn how to listen to their children, and recognize the signs that a child is being sexually abused. DEVELOPMENTS AFTER 2002 In 2003 the Archdiocese of Boston paid $85 million to 552 people who claimed sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests. In 2004, the Diocese of Orange in California settled 90 abuse claims for $100 million. In November of 2004, the USCCB established a data collection procedure, whereby dioceses make annual reports regarding allegations of sexual abuse of minors by priests and deacons, and the costs associated with the abuse. The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University was given responsibility for compiling and reporting the data.

109

110

|

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America

According to the CARA reports, there were 898 new allegations of sexual abuse of minors by clergy in 2004, 695 new allegations in 2005, and 635 new allegations against 394 priests or deacons in 2006, in 193 of the 195 dioceses in the United States. (Two dioceses refused to participate in the survey.) About 70 percent of the reported incidents of sexual abuse occurred between 1960 and 1984. About 70 percent of the accused offenders were either deceased, had already been removed from ministry, or had left the priesthood altogether. About 60 percent of the priests or deacons named in 2006 had already been accused in previous cases. About 55 percent of the allegations were reported by the victim, according to CARA, and about 80 percent of the victims were males. In 2006, dioceses in the United States paid out more than $220 million in settlements to victims. In addition, another $180 million was spent for therapy, support, and legal fees. That compares to a $466.9 million total in 2005. Dioceses also spent over $25 million implementing the prevention and protection programs initiated by the Charter. On July 16, 2007, a judge approved a $660 million settlement between the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and more than 500 alleged victims of clergy abuse. The deal came after more than five years of negotiations, and is by far the largest payout by any diocese since the clergy abuse scandal began. The archdiocese also paid $60 million the previous year to settle 45 cases that weren’t covered by sexual abuse insurance. Before that, the archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders had paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims. In the following years, six Catholic dioceses declare bankruptcy due to the enormous financial burdens of the settlements. They are: Portland, Oregon; Tucson, Arizona; Spokane, Washington; Davenport, Iowa; San Diego, California; and Fairbanks, Alaska. IS THIS LARGELY A “CATHOLIC PROBLEM”? The crisis gave rise to considerable controversies and questions. For example, many asked whether priests were “more likely to be pedophiles than non-clergy.” The term pedophile has been used to describe priests accused of sexually abusing children. The American Psychiatric Association defines a pedophile as a person who has intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children. A prepubescent child is generally considered to be under age 13. But in legal terms, the age of a prepubescent child can be hard to determine. The onset of pubescence, or the development of the secondary sexual characteristics that distinguish gender—that is, facial hair and the deepening of voice in males, breasts and the widening of hips in females—varies among individuals. Because of this, courts generally set the age below which an accuser may be considered the victim of a pedophile at 11 years. Statistics show that only 20 percent of clergy abusers can be accurately described as pedophiles, while the majority has been accused of abusing victims that are younger adolescents.

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America |

Why Do Priests Sexually Abuse Minors? In 1972, and again in 1977, studies by the NCCB/USCC found that more than half of all Catholic priests in the United States were underdeveloped emotionally, and that eight percent were psychosexually maladjusted. It has been suggested by some researchers that this is due in part to the past practice of recruiting boys into training for the priesthood at an age when they have not yet begun their psychosexual development. At these predeveloping and developing ages, boys perceive the discipline of celibacy simply in terms of avoiding all thoughts, words, and deeds of a sexual nature. Lacking the opportunities for social and emotional development in these areas, boys can grow into adulthood without the psychological tools needed to function normally in society. Their development can be frozen or fixated at a very early age, so that while they may be chronologically adults, they might still be children emotionally. Therefore, since they lack the ability to control sexual urges when they normally arise, those urges may be directed toward individuals that correspond to the levels of their development. In other words, they may direct their sexual urges toward children and adolescents. Why Were the Victims Mostly Boys? It has been suggested by some, most notably Vatican officials, that the problem is largely due to homosexuals in the priesthood. While that may be true, two factors must be considered. The first is that pedophiles, adults who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, are not necessarily gender specific in their orientation. In other words, pedophiles are not attracted to males or females, but rather to children that are not yet sexually differentiated. Second, in the Catholic culture of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, priests generally had unrestricted access to boys and adolescent males. Girls were not permitted to be altar servers, and in most cases boys and girls were segregated in Catholic school classrooms, and in many parish activities. Catholic parents generally perceived the attentions of priests toward their sons as a good thing. On the other hand, priests who sought the company of girls were regarded with suspicion. Additionally, priests were expected to encourage vocations to the priesthood, and their close association with boys in the parish was considered normal. This allowed much greater freedom for predator priests to target males. Why Wasn’t the Abuse Reported by Church Officials? Since the Council of Trent some 400 years ago, the discipline of priestly celibacy had been rigorously enforced. Additionally, bishops were bound by church law to maintain strict secrecy when it came to violations of celibacy. All records of misbehavior by clergy were kept in confidential files, and officials were obliged not to reveal anything that might cause scandal. Any sexual misbehavior by priests was considered a violation of celibacy. When credible allegations of sexual abuse did arise, offending priests were ordered to cease the behavior. In many instances, the offending priest was

111

112

|

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America

transferred to another parish where the sexual abuse continued. When it was determined that a priest had an ongoing problem, he was often sent to a treatment facility where he underwent therapy to resolve the problem. After a period of time, it was determined that the offending priest was no longer a threat to children, and he was returned to parish ministry. At the time, church law would have made it extremely difficult for a bishop to remove a priest from active ministry. Why Did Bishops Allow the Abuse to Continue? In some cases, bishops were simply negligent. It has been suggested by some researchers that many bishops lacked the expertise to properly evaluate the suitability of their priests to work safely with children. These bishops relied on the advice and counsel of experts, that in many cases was unreliable. Additionally, it has been suggested that the culture of bishops effectively distanced them from any awareness of the damage sexual abuse was causing children. Insulated from family life and the mainstream of society, they were “tone deaf ” to the problem, and lacked the sensitivity to adequately understand the problem. They perceived their first responsibility to be the protection of their own, and the welfare of the children became a secondary consideration. Therefore, they failed in their responsibility to care for their people. Why Didn’t Parents Force the Issue? In the Catholic culture of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when most of the abuse occurred, respect and reverence for clergy was placed very high on the social scale. It was inconceivable to parents that priests would do such things to their children. The parents, when informed of the abuse, often reacted with denial. Plus, the credibility of children was often questioned. The word of the priest held sway over the stories reported by the children. Compounding the problem, the children lacked the experience and vocabulary to adequately describe what was happening to them. When a child is sexually victimized by a superior adult, the child believes the adult is right, and it is the child that has misbehaved. During testimony that came out in the investigations, many adults who were sexually abused as children, reported that they had tried to inform parents, but were rebuffed. Why Did it Take so Long for the Victims to Come Forward? When a child is sexually abused, he must deal with the horror in the only ways available. Without adult allies, children will often repress the memory of abuse in the same way a person will not remember a terrible car accident. The memory of childhood sexual abuse may remain submerged for years until something like a newspaper article or television report will awaken the memory. Adults who have lived for decades with sexual and relational difficulties, may suddenly become aware of the events that led to their dysfunction. When that happens, they may still lack the courage to come forward. The experience of shame is a very

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America |

powerful motivator. It is only with a great deal of effort that individuals can break through the barrier of guilt and report their experiences. Are Children Safe in Church? With the implementation of Safe Environment programs in the dioceses, the Catholic Church may now be the safest place for a child to be! Statistics indicate that most sexual abuse of children occurs in the home by family members, trusted family friends, and neighbors. If anything, the sexual abuse scandal has provided the society with a new awareness of the threat of sexual predators. America will no longer be deaf or blind to the plight of its children. CHURCH SCANDALS: WHO IS PUNISHED FOR CHURCH SCANDALS? Few would debate that guilty clergy and religious leaders should face legal penalties for their behavior, in the same manner that any other citizen should. Furthermore, punitive financial damages (often into the millions of dollars) are a common form of legal recourse in the United States in legal actions against large institutions. However, in the case of a church, are there circumstances that make this a complex issue of justice? There have been church members, both clergy and laity, who have openly wondered whether large-scale financial suits are the most effective, or even fair and just, manner to deal with the issues. In fact, it has been argued that many entirely innocent people are punished by punitive financial awards against a church institution that must then sell property (often quickly), lay-off staff, and/or lower salaries, because of the abuses of a minority of church staff and officials. Often the most vulnerable properties, offices, and personnel, are those dealing with minority or marginal communities within the church—and it is arguable that this is much more common in the cases of church institutions losing a large financial court case, than a major industrial or commercial company facing a major financial payment. Who, in fact, is paying the price for these settlements of abuse scandals? See also Jailhouse Conversions; Separation of Church and State. Further Reading: Bausch, William J. Brave New Church: From Turmoil to Trust. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2001; Berry, Jason. Lead Us Not into Temptation: Catholic Priests and the Sexual Abuse of Children. New York: Doubleday Press, 1992; Cozzens, Donald B. The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A Reflection on the Priest’s Crisis of Soul. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000; Doyle, Thomas P., A. W. Richard Sipe, and Patrick Wall. Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church’s 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse. Santa Monica, CA: Bonus Books, 2006; Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Available at: http:// www.usccb.org/bishops/norms.shtml; Investigative Staff of the Boston Globe newspaper. Betrayal: The Crisis in the Catholic Church. Boston: Little Brown, 2002; Jenkins, Phillip. Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The Nature and Scope of

113

114

|

Cloning the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Available at: http://www. usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/; Lytton, Timothy D. “Clergy Sexual Abuse Litigation: The Policymaking Role of Tort Law.” Connecticut Law Review 39, no. 3 (February 2007): 809–895; Office of Child and Youth Protection. Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2005. http://www. usccb.org/ocyp/charter.shtml.

Paul Boudreau CLONING Cloning, or the deliberate replication of the genetic makeup of another single individual (asexual reproduction) through somatic cell nuclear transfer, has raised significant questions over the last decade. Some view cloning as providing seemingly limitless resources for future scientific and medical research, and others affirm cloning as a solution to contemporary problems (such as infertility). Others condemn cloning as morally problematic, given that it involves the destruction of embryos, obviates the dignity of the individual, and crosses moral boundaries. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND ETHICAL QUESTIONS Different experiments at cloning have existed for decades, though many of their forms and rates of success are unknown. A widely publicized example of animal cloning occurred in 1995 with sheep (and, most famously, in 1997, and the cloning of a sheep named Dolly by Scottish scientists Jan Vilmut and K.H.S. Campbell). Debates emerged about the legitimacy of such a cloning, particularly given that hundreds of embryos were created and destroyed in creating only one viable living organism. Moreover, in other cases where the cloning of mammals was attempted, there were extraordinarily high mortality rates in utero, and shortly after birth. Attempts at human cloning have been secretive, and fraught with unsubstantiated rumors and intense scrutiny. Many professional organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the President’s Council on Bioethics, have condemned cloning-to-producechildren. In 2003, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. Others maintain that cloning may not involve horrifying images of clones, but rather it involves a sophisticated way to conduct medical research. One of the pressing ethical questions concerns the means and ends of cloning. By what means could cloning occur? This clearly involves considerations of scientific technology (what are we able to do?), but it is requires society to take seriously ethical concerns about basic values (what should we do?). Considerations of the moral status of the embryo are paramount when evaluating the means used in cloning, particularly cloning for research where embryos are typically destroyed. Do we view such destruction as a necessary step for advancing scientific knowledge, or as immoral, in that embryos are created for the

Cloning |

115

STEM-CELL RESEARCH AND CLONING Stem-cell research and cloning are not equivalent, but many forms of stem-cell research use cloning or raise similar ethical questions. Stem-cell research has generated polemical debates, pitting those in favor of its potential research benefits, versus those opposed to its destruction of embryos and manipulation of human cells. Persuaded more by the latter perspective, President George W. Bush mandated that only a few preexisting embryonic stem-cell lines could be used for federally funded research; only adult stem-cell lines could receive such funding. Debates emerged: could adult stem cells provide the same level of research? Is the notion of not destroying embryos preferable to the notion of responding less expeditiously, or even less effectively, to those who are currently suffering? In response to Bush’s restriction, California voters passed Proposition 71 in November 2004, which promoted a bond measure to devote $3 billion to human embryonic stem-cell experiments. Private, capitalistic organizations are continuing to explore the possibilities of both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. The problems and prospects of such research must continually be evaluated in terms of its ethical dimensions.

purpose of destruction? Concerns about ends include related questions about the ultimate purposes of cloning (what are trying to achieve?). The challenge is to evaluate both the goods achieved (how might cloning contribute to those in need, such as providing research findings to help those suffering with diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or diabetes?) and the harms inflicted (what happens to embryos when they are cloned?) in and through cloning. THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON CLONING Scriptural Themes Theologians point to the relevance of the creation accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first creation account (Genesis 1:1–2:4a) ascribes to humanity the imago dei, or being created in the image and likeness of God. Would cloned humans possess the imago dei? Or, would they only reflect the image and likeness of humanity? Furthermore, Genesis 1:28 reveals God’s mandate to “Be fruitful and multiply,” affirming the goodness of creation and of procreation. Would cloning accord with God’s mandate? Many theologians argued against such a claim, because cloning usurps God’s divinely ordained natural process of reproduction with humans’ own technologically-driven form of creation. Others view the second creation account (Genesis 2:4b-2:24) as instructive in terms of its depiction of human anthropology. Humans are constituted by material and spirit, for Genesis 2:7 states: “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Cloning, it is claimed, only can replicate the material; it therefore fails to achieve integrity with respect to the meaning of being a human. Moreover, based on the perspective that the embryo is, or is not a person, there

116

|

Cloning

are debates about the applicability of Scriptural verses prohibiting killing (e.g., “Thou shall not murder,” Exodus 20:13, or “Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death,” Exodus 21:12) to cloning questions. Theologians frequently point to another passage in the Hebrew Scriptures, Psalms 139:13–16, to refute cloning as incompatible with the wonder of God’s own work of creation: “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, where none of them as yet existed.” Other thinkers contend that infertility—one of the possible reasons why persons would embrace the use of cloning—is also a matter taken care of by God. God promised a child to Abraham and Sarah, and provided a son in Isaac (Genesis 21:1–2), and God provided a son, Joseph, to the barren Rachel (Genesis 30:22–24). Current Theological Positions Numerous Protestant theologians have objected to cloning on the grounds that it usurps the absolute sovereignty of God (i.e., theologians in the Reformed tradition who follow thinkers such as John Calvin [1509–1564]). They claim that cloning compromises the dignity of the person, and misuses human free will and responsibility. Others, such as Ronald Cole-Turner, argue that the moral status of the embryo should not be the determining factor in embryonic research. He submits that a human status emerges “somewhere between conception and birth development” (Cole-Turner 2001, 90; original emphasis). He refers to the process of “individuation” as important for evaluating the status of the embryo, and not just conception itself (which agrees with several Catholic theologians, but also which differs from the positions of the Catholic Church and Orthodox Christianity that hold life begins at the moment of conception). In terms of broader questions about the use of embryos (and thus pertinent to the cloning debates), theologian Gene Outka considers the hundreds of thousands of embryos created by In Vitro Fertilization that are stored frozen in vats. He argues that research on these excess embryos is permissible and morally tolerable: “It remains difficult for me to see what treating [these excess embryos] as ends summons us to do, how flushing them respects them more, or is less evil, than employing them for research” (Outka 2002, 59). Other voices in the debate include the United Methodist Church (which, in September, 2001, issued Urgent Action Alert: Urge Senators to Support Complete Ban on Human Cloning), the Orthodox Church (which also, through the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America, issued a statement in October, 2001), the Southern Baptist Convention (which resolved to ban public funding of human embryonic research in June 1999). These views stand in contrast to the July 2001 declaration from the United Church of Christ, which called for support of federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and to a joint statement by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and the Rabbinical Council of

Cloning |

America, which also supported embryonic research. Both documents affirm the centrality of healing and caring for the sick in the Judeo-Christian tradition as grounds for such research. The latter document does not believe that embryos in vitro possess the full status of personhood, though it does distinguish between cloning for therapeutic purposes (which it endorses), and cloning for reproductive purposes (which it opposes). In 1997, the Pontificia Academia Pro Vita helped to clarify the Catholic Church’s position on cloning by issuing Reflection on Cloning. Engaging the biological, theological, and ethical dimensions of cloning, the group contends that “[cloning] represents a radical manipulation of the constitutive relationality and complimentarity which is at the origin of human procreation in both its biological and strictly personal aspects” (Pontificia Academia Pro Vita 1997, Section 3). Cloning changes the meaning and function of human reproduction, and, like In Vitro Fertilization it encourages the commodification of production of embryos. The text also identifies concerns regarding the exploitation of women, as well as the invention of artificial wombs that would usurp human participation and fabricate human beings (Pontificia Academia Pro Vita 1997, Section 3). Cloning reduces humans to their biology (and thereby does violence to their dignity), and confuses parentage, thereby rupturing parent-child bonds. Most fundamentally, cloning disrespects and obviates the moral status of the embryo. The text also develops a broader point—which resonated with the thought of Pope John Paul II—about the dangers of scientific inquiry: “The ‘human cloning’ project represents the terrible aberration to which value-free science is driven and is a sign of the profound malaise of our civilization, which looks to science, technology, and the ‘quality of life’ as surrogates for the meaning of life and its salvation” (Pontificia Academia Pro Vita 1997, Section 3). The text also holds that the possibility of human cloning also violates two fundamental principles on which all human rights are based: the principle of equality among human beings, and the principle of non-discrimination (Pontificia Academia Pro Vita 1997, Section 4). POLICY DEBATES: ASSESSING THE ETHICAL GROUNDS OF TWO TYPES OF CLONING In July 2002, the President’s Council on Bioethics issued a report titled Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. The council, constituted by scientists, philosophers, theologians, physicians, legal theorists, and public policy experts, reviews in a comprehensive manner the arguments for and against cloning. The text focuses on two types of cloning; cloning-to-produce-children, or the production of a cloned embryo with the goal of producing a child who will be genetically identical to a currently existing or previously existing individual, and cloning-for-biomedical-research, or production of a cloned human embryo formed for the purpose of using it in research and gaining scientific knowledge of development and diseases. In terms of the first type of cloning, the council considers the potential goods achieved. These goods include: enabling infertile couples to have genetically related children; permitting couples at risk of conceiving a child with a genetic disease to avoid having an afflicted child; allowing

117

118

|

Cloning

the bearing of a child who could become an ideal transplant donor for a particular patient; enabling a parent to keep a living connection with a dead or dying child or spouse; and allowing society to replicate individuals of great talent or beauty. Yet, as the council holds, these potential goods are clearly outweighed by significant harms. These harms include: problems of identity and individuality for the original person who is cloned; concerns regarding manufacturing, whereby cloned babies are designed, and not treated as gifts and thus subject to commercialization; the prospects of a new eugenics and the private pursuit of genetically engineered enhancement; troubled family relations (where, for example, fathers could become “twin brothers” to their “sons”); and social effects such as control and the changed perceptions of children. In adjudicating these harms and goods, the council unanimously concludes that cloning-to-producechildren should not be allowed (President’s Council on Bioethics 2002). The council remains divided on cloning for biomedical research. The different perspectives consist of two moral cases in support of such cloning, and one perspective against such cloning. The first position, identified as position number one, argues that the moral status of the embryo has intermediate moral status, that is, in its earliest stages of development, it is not equivalent to a person but it has developing and intermediate moral worth. Advocates of this position do not view the embryo as “creation for destruction,” but rather for use in the service of life and medicine. This focus on the good achieved over the resulting harm, reflects a teleologically driven emphasis on the end and the good. They affirm that embryos should not be used after the blastocyst stage of development (the first 14 days of development), but they do not object to their use prior to and during such development. The other position that supports cloning for biomedical research is identified as position number two. This position ascribes no special moral status to the early stage cloned embryo. It perceives the embryo as any other cell (and thus should be treated no differently). It encourages cloning for biomedical research as long as it adheres to the moral standards that accompany any biomedical research. The remaining members of the council articulate a moral case against cloning for biomedical research. They refute the other positions’ interpretations of the moral status of the embryo and its use. They argue that position number one fails to safeguard the embryo because special respect has little, or no operative meaning if cloned embryos may be created in bulk and used routinely with impunity. They contend that position number two fails to appreciate the unique status of the embryo, because it denies the continuous history of individuals from embryos to infants, and misunderstands potentiality. Based on this understanding of the moral status of the embryo, those against cloning for biomedical research hold that the creation of human life expressively and exclusively for the purpose of its destruction for research, crosses a very significant moral boundary. In focusing on moral boundaries, duties, and what is right (versus what is good), these thinkers uphold a deontological position. They insist that crossing moral boundaries would coarsen our moral sensibilities (and lessen our respect for life), open us to moral hazards, and place the government in the precarious position of endorsing the destruction of life. Those supporting this position acknowledge the pain and suffering of those with debilitating diseases, but they submit that we

Cosmology

must honor moral limits, and refuse to secure the good of some humans by sacrificing the lives of others (President’s Council on Bioethics 2002). The council then offers public policy recommendations: a majority recommendation (ten members) and a minority recommendation (seven members). The former advocates for a permanent ban on cloning to produce children, and a four-year moratorium on biomedical research. They call for further democratic deliberation to seek moral consensus on cloning for biomedical research (though some assert that deliberation can be used to convince the public that cloning for biomedical research should not be used, whereas some assert that deliberation can used to persuade the public that cloning for biomedical research should be used). The minor recommendation also includes a permanent ban on cloning to produce children. However, in contrast to the majority recommendation, it approves cloning for biomedical research, and permits it to proceed without substantial delay. It promotes regulatory protections (to avoid abuses and misuses of cloned embryos), and it encourages the federal government to initiate a review of present and protected practices of human embryo research (President’s Council on Bioethics 2002). See also Abortion; Birth Control and Family Planning. Further Reading: Burley, Justine, ed. The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999; Cahill, Lisa Sowle. Theological Bioethics: Participation, Justice, and Change. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005; Cole-Turner, Ronald, ed. Beyond Cloning: Religion and the Remaking of Humanity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001; Hansen, Mark J., ed. Claiming Power over Life: Religion and Biotechnology Policy. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001; Klotzko, Judith, ed. 2001. The Cloning Sourcebook. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; Nussbaum, Martha, and Cass Sunstein, eds. Clones and Clones: Facts and Fantasies About Human Cloning. New York: Norton, 1998; O’Donovan, Oliver. Begotten or Made? Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984; Outka, Gene. “The Ethics of Stem Cell Research.” 2002. Available at: http://www.bioethics.gov/background/outka paper.html; Pontificia Academia Pro Vita. “Reflections on Cloning.” 1997. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_30091997_ clon_en.html; President’s Council on Bioethics. 2002. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. 2002. Available at: http://www.bioeth ics.gov/reports/ cloningreport/index.html; Ramsey, Paul. Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970; Shannon, Thomas, and James J. Walter. The New Genetic Medicine: Theological and Ethical Reflections. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2003; Walter, James. J., and Thomas Shannon. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics: A Catholic Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005; Waters, Brent, and Ronald Cole-Turner, eds. God and the Embryo: Religious Voices on Stem Cells and Cloning. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003.

Jonathan Rothchild COSMOLOGY Cosmology is the study of the structure and history of the universe as a whole. Traditional cultures all over the world have preserved cosmological ideas for

| 119

120

|

Cosmology

thousands of years, often in the form of religious stories. In the twentieth and now twenty-first centuries, modern scientific cosmology has combined theories and observations from astronomy, physics, and other sciences, to produce the big bang theory. BIG BANG COSMOLOGY In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that other galaxies are moving away from us. Hubble’s observations confirmed earlier theoretical work by Georges Memaitre, who, on the basis of Einstein’s theory of relativity, proposed that the universe was expanding and that in the distant past it began with an explosion from a primeval atom. Some scientists, prominently Fred Hoyle, disagreed with Mamaitre’s theory and favored a steady-state view of the universe, in which new matter is constantly created. It was Hoyle who first used the phrase big bang, in criticism of the expanding universe theory. George Bamow favored Mamaitre’s view, and on the basis of the expanding universe view, predicted the existence of universal background radiation. The discovery of cosmic background radiation in 1965 pushed scientific consensus toward the big bang theory. Many observations and refinements of the theory have solidified its acceptance in recent decades. Current big bang theory holds that our physical universe began about 13.7 billion years ago. At one time, all the matter in the universe was packed into a space no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Many scientists believe that all the matter and energy of the universe came from an initial singularity, an infinitely small and infinitely dense point. More cautious theorists point out that in the very first moment of the big bang (in the first 10–43 seconds), heat and pressure would cause the fundamental forces of the universe (electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and gravity) to combine into one force, making conclusions about this period extremely speculative. Such thinkers say that to be careful, we ought to say the big bang theory covers the history of the universe from the present back to the first second, but not into the Planck epoch (the first 10–43 seconds). Big bang cosmology is an active research program in contemporary science. Thus, scientists are continually refining the theory and finding new ways to test its implications. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the general outline of the theory—that the physical universe is expanding and that it had a beginning— is almost universally accepted by physicists and astronomers. Big bang cosmology has fed religious controversy in two areas, related to two of the classic arguments for theism: the first cause argument, and the design argument. BIG BANG COSMOLOGY AND THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT Thomas Aquinas offered five arguments purporting to prove the existence of God. Here is a simplified outline of the first way; the first-cause argument. 1. There is something in motion. 2. Everything that is in motion is moved by something else.

Cosmology

3. Infinite regress is impossible. 4. Therefore, there must be a first mover. And, Aquinas says, the first mover is what we call God. Aquinas’s arguments are all classified as a posteriori arguments, because they start with some empirical observation. In the first way, the empirical observation is the very general claim that something moves. Aquinas thought no one would deny this proposition, and perhaps he was right. Historically speaking, critics of the argument usually question the third premise. Why should we think that infinite regress is impossible? If object one is moved by object two, and object two is moved by object three, and so on, why could there not be an infinite series of objects, each moved by a prior object? Philosophers who took this line of thought sometimes proposed that the universe came into existence on its own, but often they suggested that the universe has always existed. Bertrand Russell’s oft-reprinted speech, Why I Am Not a Christian expresses these traditional criticisms (Russell 1957). If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as god, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Indian’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise: and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.” The argument really is no better that that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose the world had a beginning at all. Some may find it ironic that Russell first delivered this speech in 1927, and that it was published in 1929, the very period in which Hubble observed the red shift of light from other galaxies. Some philosophers have argued that, quite apart from big bang cosmology, there are good reasons to reject the notion of infinite regress. This turns out to be a surprisingly complex and difficult question, connected to philosophical issues in mathematical theory regarding infinity. There are strong arguments that an actual infinite could not exist in the real universe. If an infinitely old universe is conceived as an infinite series of units of time (say, an infinite number of seconds), then the arguments against a real actual infinite apply equally well to an always-existing universe. Whether or not such philosophical arguments in favor of premise three are sound, the big bang theory seems to support premise three, at least in regard to the physical universe. The theory seems to indicate that we do have good reasons to think the world has not always existed, and that it had a beginning. Some scientists proposed an oscillating universe model, in which the expansion of the universe stops, and the matter of the universe collapses into a singularity from which it explodes in another big bang. This idea allows for an infinite series of big bangs, returning us (at least in regards to the first cause argument) to an eternal physical universe. But the estimated mass of the observed universe is far less that what would be needed to reverse the expansion of the universe. All

| 121

122

|

Cosmology

observations to date seem to indicate that the universe is not closed but open: it will expand forever, and all centers of energy (such as stars) will eventually expend themselves, leading to heat equilibrium very near absolute zero. It should be pointed out that even if big bang cosmology gives scientific reasons in support of premise three, the first cause argument only concludes that the universe must have some cause that was/is itself not caused by anything else in the universe. Aquinas says that the cause of the universe is God, and he understands “God” to mean the deity of classic theism (the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). But “God” understood in this way, is conceptually much richer than the first cause of the universe. Aquinas’s claim goes far beyond the conclusion of the first cause argument, though it is consonant with it. BIG BANG COSMOLOGY AND THE DESIGN ARGUMENT Aquinas’s fifth way to prove the existence of God is the argument from design. The argument can be summarized this way. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Things in nature act toward good ends. Things act toward good ends only by means of design. Presence of design indicates the existence of a designer. Therefore things in nature have a designer.

And the designer of the natural world, says Aquinas, is God. In the fifth way, the empirical observation is both more specific, and controversial than the first way. What does it mean for things in nature to act toward good ends? In the centuries since Aquinas, various supporters of the design argument have suggested thousands of specific examples of alleged order, or design in the universe. Thus, there are many variations of the design argument, depending on which features of the observed universe are said to act toward good ends. Design arguments also vary as to whether they are presented as analogical arguments, or arguments to best explanation. In the nineteenth century, William Paley greatly popularized analogical design arguments using biological examples. Just as the evidence of design in a watch supports our conclusion that some watchmaker designed the watch, Paley argued that instances of design in living organisms supported the conclusion that some (vastly superior) world-maker designed living creatures. Then, in 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, which offered a very different explanation of apparent design in biological structures. The main ideas here are: (1) Random variation or genetic drift can produce changes in the genetic code of creatures; (2) Natural selection eliminates “bad experiments” in genetic structure, as unfavorable traits prevent creatures from passing on the genes for those traits; and (3) Genetic changes that produce traits favorable to reproduction are passed on to succeeding generations. As a result, over long periods of time, evolution produces many examples of apparent design, none of which require an intelligent designer. To many thinkers, the theory of evolution dealt a deathblow to the design argument. It certainly made Paley’s analogical-biological versions of the argument suspect. One might speculate that some religious people bitterly

Cosmology

oppose the theory of evolution, partly because it undermines their favorite arguments for the existence of God. However, Darwinism is mostly irrelevant to other versions of the design argument. Many contemporary versions of the design argument explicitly assume the truth of natural selection as an adequate explanation of the apparent design of biological organisms. (Note the move to “adequate explanation” talk. Recent design arguments are mostly arguments to the best explanation, rather than analogical arguments.) Recent design arguments are often called fine-tuning arguments. They point to fundamental properties of the observed universe: things like the gravitational constant, the strong force, the weak force, the speed of light, and several other cosmic constants. All of these values were established for our universe soon after the big bang. All of them could easily have been quite different from what they are (that is, there is nothing in big bang theory that requires them to be what they are). However, if any one of them had been even slightly different from what it is, our universe could not have supported life. Fine-tuning arguments point to many specific “coincidences” among the values of the cosmic constants. For instance, the strong nuclear force binds together elementary particles, such as quarks in neutrons and protons. If the strong force had been 1 percent stronger than it is, the process of stellar nucleosythesis would not have produced carbon (it would have been burned into oxygen); on the other hand, if the strong force had been 1 percent weaker, the universe would have no elements more complex than hydrogen. Apparently, our universe got it “just right.” It must be emphasized that fine-tuning arguments enlist scores—or even hundreds—of such improbable facts. This produces a cumulative case argument, which claims that the simultaneous occurrence of all these life-enabling facts is best explained by a cosmic designer. A rough and ready way to imagine the argument is to think that the big bang could have produced a nearly infinite number of different universes, and in virtually all of them life would have been impossible. Our universe is one of an extremely tiny percentage that could support life. Is there some way to explain this piece of cosmic good luck? THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE As one would expect, not all philosophers or scientists have been persuaded by fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God. Nevertheless, the extreme improbability of a life-supporting universe emerging from the big bang has led thinkers to propose the “anthropic principle” as an explanation of this occurrence. John Barrow and Frank Tipler (1986) suggested the following as a definition of what they called the weak anthropic principle (WAP): WAP: The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

| 123

124

|

Cosmology

Another way of expressing the WAP is this: any universe that has observers in it, must also have cosmological features that allow those observers to exist and observe. Given that our universe has in it carbon-based living beings as observers (human beings), it follows that our universe must have cosmological features that permit the evolution of such living beings. Pretty clearly, the weak anthropic principle does not give a satisfactory explanation of fine-tuning facts, unless it is combined with some auxiliary hypotheses. It is trivially true that human beings could not exist unless the universe permitted them to exist. But this does not explain why the universe is the way it is. Presumably, the fact that the universe exists the way it does is the cause of the evolution of observers; the existence of the observers does not cause the universe to exist the way it does. The point can be made by way of an analogy. Suppose some political prisoner, “Alice,” is led out to be executed by firing squad. Alice watches a dozen riflemen take aim at her; she hears the order given for the men to fire, and then she hears all of the riflemen cursing their weapons. All of the rifles failed to operate properly, at the same time! Now, suppose Alice told herself, “Obviously, if the rifles had worked, I would be dead. The fact that I am not dead requires that the rifles failed. So there is nothing to explain here.” This is not an adequate explanation. The misfiring of the weapons caused (or causally contributed to) her being alive; Alice’s living did not cause the weapons’ malfunction. Nor will Alice simply attribute her survival to chance. If Alice is reasonable, she will suspect that some better explanation of her survival could be found—perhaps some political ally unknown to her has rigged the rifles, or maybe her non-execution was staged by the government in order to frighten her, and so on. The point of the analogy is that some situations are so improbable that we do not regard chance as an adequate explanation; we seek some better explanation. Cosmologists who propose fine-tuning arguments point out that the improbability of a life-supporting universe is far greater than in “Alice’s” story. However, the WAP does provide a satisfactory explanation of the existence of human observers if it is supplemented by the many universes or world ensemble theory. Some theorists have proposed that the big bang produced not just one universe, but every possible universe. None of the universes causally interact with each other; each is isolated and “independent.” Clearly, if all the universes that could be caused by the big bang actually exist, some of them will be universes in which life could evolve. Then, according to WAP, human observers will only exist within some universe that supports the existence of such observers. Unfortunately, since the world ensemble theory requires that all the universes be causally independent, it would be impossible to gather empirical evidence from within one universe about any of the others. Thus, the world ensemble theory moves beyond the boundaries of empirical science. Defenders of the world ensemble theory point out that this is precisely what religious explanations (such as the idea of a creator God) do. It should be emphasized that scientific cosmology may undergo significant theoretical changes in the future as astronomers, physicists, and mathematicians

Cosmology

respond to new observations. The implications of future discoveries and changes in cosmological theory may be unpredictable. See also Aliens; Science Fiction. Further Reading: Barrow, John and Frank Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; Bostrom, Nick. Anthropic Bias: Observation: Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2002; Craig, William Lane. Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; Davis, Stephen T. God, Reason and Theistic Proofs. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997; Guth, Alan. The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. New York: Persues Books, 1997; Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: Warner Books, 1978; Leslie, John. Universes. London: Routledge, 1989; Russell, Bertrand. “Why I Am Not a Christian.” In Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1957; Southgate, Christopher, ed. God, Humanity and the Cosmos: A Textbook in Science and Religion. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1999.

Phil Smith

| 125

This page intentionally left blank

D “DEEP ECOLOGY” AND RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM Coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1972, the term “deep ecology” designates both a philosophical and social/political movement intended to address the global environmental crisis. On a philosophical level, heavily influenced by Native American and other aboriginal spiritual traditions, deep ecology maintains the fundamental equality and right to flourish of all elements of the earth and living world. Deep ecology’s emphasis on the inherent value of the earth and all living things is grounded in the concept of the fundamental unity of human beings with the whole cosmos to which they belong. Much of the debate and discussion inspired by deep ecology, centers around the question of how to balance human need with the necessity to preserve and care for the environment on which human (and all other) life depends. DEEP ECOLOGY’S DEEP ROOTS Deep ecology advocates a move away from an anthropocentric (that is, a human-centered) perspective to an ecocentric (that is, a physical world-centered) worldview, that recognizes as primary the continued flourishing of the entire living and natural world (Sessions 1995, 156–158; Seed et al. 1988, 35–39). This ecocentric perspective at the core of deep ecology has ancient roots in the cosmological and religious systems of indigenous or primal hunter-gatherer cultures, which regard all aspects of the cosmos as sacred, interrelated, and alive. Given that hunter-gatherer life-ways have characterized cultures spanning the majority of human history, associated holistic and ecocentric worldviews rank as

127

128

| “Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism

the most ancient of human religious and philosophical systems (Sessions 1995, 158). Indigenous holistic and ecocentric worldviews have inspired the writings and work of many deep ecologists, including Pulitzer prize–winning poet Gary Snyder, whose poetry collection Turtle Island grew out of his close work with Native Americans; and rainforest activist John Seed, who draws extensively on the wisdom of indigenous peoples in his work to save the rainforest and heal people’s relationship to the earth and living world (Snyder 1995, 457–462; Seed et al. 1988, 9–11). In its contemporary form, however, the deep ecology movement arose in the 1960s alongside the ecological movement, inspired by the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. Early deep ecologists found inspiration and direction in the nature writings of Henry David Thoreau and John Muir, Aldo Leopold’s land ethic presented in his Sand County Almanac, and the Buddhist perspective of Alan Watts. Gary Snyder, in his synthesis of Native American and Zen Buddhist philosophies, has become a prominent international spokesman for deep ecology. In the academic sphere, Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess began developing some of the principles of deep ecology as early as 1968, building on the philosophical ideas of Spinoza and Gandhi (Sessions 1995, 157, 232–234). Particularly significant in helping to crystallize the ecocentric perspective was UCLA historian Lynn White’s seminal 1967 article The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. White argued that Christianity, characterized by a dangerous anthropocentrism, has de-sacralized the natural world, and encouraged its mindless exploitation as nothing more than a resource to be utilized for purely selfish human ends. Instead of science, technology, or Marxism (which he regarded as a Christian heresy), White advocated—as a possible solution—a return to the nature mysticism of Saint Francis of Assisi (White 1967, x, 158). DEFINING PRINCIPLES OF DEEP ECOLOGY As defined by philosophers Bill Devall and George Sessions, deep ecology is rooted in two fundamental principles. The first principle is self-realization, which affirms that each individual (human or otherwise) is part of a larger whole, or Self, which encompasses ultimately the planet earth and the entire cosmos. Expressed in the Native American (Lakota) prayer Mitakuye Oyasin (“I am related to all that is”), the concept of self-realization is embraced in some form by diverse religious traditions worldwide (Badiner 1990, xv; Brown 2001, 89). Many indigenous traditions understand human beings’ relationship to the living and natural world in kinship or familial terms: Animals and trees, but also rocks and rivers, are brothers, sisters, and ancestors belonging to one allencompassing, all-inclusive, and interdependent family. As a powerful modern expression of the self-realization concept, many deep ecologists have embraced James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis, which views the entire planet earth as a living being (Lovelock 1982, 9; Abram 1990, 75). The second fundamental principle of deep ecology, as outlined by Devall and Sessions, is biocentric equality, which upholds that all elements of the biosphere have an equal right to live and flourish. In maintaining the principle of biocentric

“Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism

equality, deep ecologists do not deny the apparent inequality of the natural world evident in the biological realities of predation or natural selection. Yet, deep ecology is concerned primarily with challenging the deeply ingrained anthropocentric notion that human beings have an absolute right to reign supreme over the environment and living things, without regard for the welfare of the whole. Deep ecology’s insistence on biocentric equality derives from the recognition that all entities in the cosmos live interrelated with, and interdependent upon one another. The principle of biocentric equality follows logically from that of selfrealization, insofar as harming one element of the biosphere harms the whole. Ultimately, deep ecology thus embraces a vision of the cosmos where human beings live in harmony and balance with all entities in the interconnected web of life. In practical terms, this means that humans, as an interdependent part of a much greater Self, should live in ways that encourage the survival of all other species (and the environment) upon which they depend. In addition to articulating basic principles such as self-realization and biocentric equality, deep ecologists have also sought to distinguish deep ecology from what they see as the more shallow ecology characteristic of environmental policies in the industrialized world. In 1973, Arne Naess critiques what he terms a shallow ecological movement that, though attempting to fight pollution and conserve resources, is primarily concerned with maintaining the health and high living standard of developed countries (Naess 1995, 151). In a 1986 article, he develops the shallow-deep contrast further, contrasting approaches of the two different movements to key issues such as pollution and resource depletion. With respect to pollution, the shallow ecological approach entails the creation of laws that, while seeking to limit pollution, often simply relocate it by exporting high-pollution industry to developing countries. In contrast, the deep ecological approach analyzes pollution in terms of its overall systemic impact on the entire biosphere, looking at health effects on all species, and seeking economic and political alternatives to the unjust practice of pollution exportation. With respect to resource depletion, deep ecology rejects the shallow ecological treatment of animals, trees, and the earth merely as resources for human use, insisting that the earth and living world are valuable in and of themselves, independent of their utility to human beings (Naess 1995, 71–72). Working together with George Sessions, Arne Naess formulated an eightpoint deep ecology platform; a foundational statement embodying both the activist and philosophical commitments of the deep ecology movement (Naess 1995, 68): 1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth). These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes. 2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves. 3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

| 129

130

| “Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism

4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires a smaller human population. 5. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. 6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present. 7. The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness. 8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes. Naess notes that points one to five directly challenge dominant models of economic growth and development in industrialized countries. At the same time, he admits that reducing population growth and wealthy countries’ “interference with the non-human world” will take hundreds of years (Naess 1995, 69). As a way of promoting the deep ecology movement in developing countries, Naess recommends direct grassroots action, which can circumvent government interference. CRITIQUES OF DEEP ECOLOGY One of the most widely discussed critiques of deep ecology is that it is misanthropic: In its critique of anthropocentrism and commitment to biocentric equality, critics have argued that deep ecology advocates the survival and flourishing of nonhuman species at the expense of human beings (Sessions 1995, xiii, 267; Fox 1995, 280). For example, in a remark he subsequently retracted, former Vice President Al Gore charged Arne Naess’s deep ecology with treating people as “an alien presence on the earth” (Sessions 1995, xiii). After giving a speech on overfishing in the Barent Sea, in which Naess advocated viewing the Sea as a “whole complex ecosystem” where even microscopic flagellates have intrinsic value, a fishing industry representative is said to have quipped: “Naess is of course more concerned about flagellates than about people” (Naess 1995, 406). Deep ecologists respond that such critiques arise from a basic misunderstanding or misrepresentation of deep ecological principles. Al Gore’s remark was inspired by a statement from Dave Foreman, a leader of the radical Earth First! environmental group, about “not giving aid to Ethiopians and allowing them to starve,” a remark for which Foreman subsequently apologized (Sessions 1995, xxvi). Although Earth First! has adopted the deep ecology platform, Sessions points out that such clearly misanthropic statements are fundamentally antithetical to deep ecology’s ecocentrism (Sessions 1995, xiii). Admitting that deep ecology’s radical egalitarian stance has often been misunderstood, Naess emphasizes that such egalitarianism does not imply that humans are not extraordinary, or that they have no obligations to their own

“Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism

species (Naess 1995, 76). Deep ecology endeavors to promote “an egalitarian attitude on the part of humans toward all entities in the ecosphere—including humans” (Fox 1995, 280). In developing this point further, Naess explains that deep ecology’s ecocentric perspective seeks to promote awareness of human interdependence and interconnectedness within the earth’s ecosystem, not to devalue human beings. In response to the charge that he cared more about flagellates than people, Naess explains: “My point was that the present tragic situation for fishermen could have been avoided if policy makers had shown a little more respect for all life, not less respect for people” (Naess 1995, 406). At the same time, balancing human need with the necessity of preserving the ecosphere is, in practical terms, often very difficult. In addressing such difficult human and environmental issues, some of the most thoughtful challenges to deep ecology have come from scholars and environmentalists in the developing world. Indian environmental scholar Ramachandra Guha, for example, critiques deep ecology on several points, two of which will be taken up here. First, while Guha praises, in a general sense, deep ecology’s challenge to human “arrogance and ecological hubris,” he rejects the further conclusion “that intervention in nature should be guided primarily by the need to preserve biotic integrity rather than by the needs of humans” (Guha 2003, 555). Encouraging a philosophical shift from an anthropocentric to a biocentric perspective, Guha argues, fails utterly to address the two primary causes of environmental destruction: (1) overconsumption by wealthy nations and Third World elites; and (2) militarization with its threat of nuclear annihilation (Guha 2003, 555). The complex economic, political, and individual lifestyle factors that support militarization and overconsumption cannot be traced back merely to deeply ingrained anthropocentrism (Guha 2003, 556). In essence, then, Guha insists that protecting and preserving the environment necessarily entails addressing the root causes of overconsumption and militarization. Guha’s second critique of deep ecology is that the setting aside of wildlife preserves and wilderness areas, a practice supported by Western deep ecologists, has been thoroughly detrimental in the developing world. As a prominent example, Guha cites Project Tiger in his native India; an effort spearheaded by Indian conservationists in cooperation with international agencies such as the World Wildlife Fund. Project Tiger, by displacing poor rural villagers to preserve endangered tigers, “resulted in a direct transfer of resources from the poor to the rich” (Guha 2003, 556). Guha sees such wilderness preservation efforts, and associated claims by Western biologists that only they are competent to decide how tropical areas are to be used, as a blatant expression of Western neocolonial imperialism (Guha 2003, 556–557). Deep ecologists have responded to Guha’s, and similar critiques, at various levels. First, deep ecologists disagree in some respects with Guha over how human beings ought to relate to, and live within the natural world. While deep ecology, drawing from the teachings of indigenous and many Eastern religious traditions, promotes a paradigm of cooperative interrelationship with the natural world, Guha sees Eastern religious traditions supporting a model in which humans

| 131

132

| “Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism

throughout history in the East have engaged in a “finely tuned but nonetheless conscious and dynamic manipulation of nature” (Guha 2003, 557). From a deep ecological perspective, however, viewing the natural world as something to be manipulated or controlled constitutes in itself a form of imperialism. In an observation with which Guha might well agree, Thomas Birch condemns America’s “incarceration” of natural areas into wilderness reservations as another example of the “white imperium” attempting to subdue and control an “adversarial other.” Citing Luther Standing Bear, Birch upholds deep ecology’s vision of a human relationship with the earth that is not adversarial, “but participatory, cooperative, and complementary” (Birch 1995, 348). Second, from the ecocentric standpoint of deep ecology, the claim that human needs must take precedence over biodiversity, illustrates just how deeply-ingrained anthropocentrism is in human thinking about the environment (Sessions 1995, xvi). Third, deep ecologists have pointed out that addressing the widespread social injustice associated with, and perpetuated by, such things as overconsumption and militarization, does not by itself necessarily result in a harmonious or sustainable relationship with the natural world (Fox 1995, 276). Focusing merely on human problems, unacceptably relegates the nonhuman world to its traditional secondary position as the “background against which the significant action—human action—takes place” (Fox 1995, 277). In a detailed response to Guha, Naess defends wilderness preservation efforts, clarifying that such a strategy is not intended for export to colonize the developing world, but is one of the essential tools in limiting environmental destruction caused by industrial overconsumption in the West (Naess 1995, 401). Despite such differences in perspective, however, deep ecologists appear in many other ways to stand in essential agreement with Guha’s analysis. Naess, speaking for many environmentalists, asserts that human beings must set as a universal goal the avoidance of “all kinds of consumerism,” and questions whether wealthy nations, given their own environmental record, “deserve any credibility when preaching ecological responsibility to the poor countries” (Naess 1995, 399, 401). Deep ecologists would have very little argument with Guha’s call for overconsuming, expansionist Western nations to adopt an “ethic of renunciation and self-limitation” (Guha 2003, 558). In addition, deep ecologists and environmentalists, in general, are well aware of (and are seeking to address) the ongoing environmental (not to mention human) devastation caused by the military industrial complex (Sessions 1995, xvi-xvii). Naess, Gary Snyder, and many other deep ecologists work with, and support, indigenous autonomous efforts worldwide to preserve and find ways to live sustainably in relation to the environment (Naess 1995, 404–405). In this spirit of cooperation and mutual concern, Naess presents deep ecologists with a question to guide future inquiry and action: “How can the increasing global interest in protecting all Life on Earth be used to further the cause of genuine economic progress and social justice in the Third World?” (Naess 1995, 406). Returning to the core principles of self-realization and biocentric equality, deep ecology thus upholds a vision in which humans take care of themselves by learning to care for Mother Earth.

Divorce | 133

See also Gospel of Prosperity; Vegetarianism as Religious Witness. Further Reading: Abram, D. “The Perceptual Implications of Gaia.” In Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology, ed. A.H. Badiner. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1990: 75–92; Badiner, A. H., ed. Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1990; Birch, T. “The Incarceration of Wildness: Wilderness Areas as Prisons.” In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995; Bodian, S. “Simple in Means, Rich in Ends: An Interview with Arne Naess.” In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995: 26–36; Brown, J.E. Teaching Spirits: Understanding Native American Religious Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; Devall, B., and G. Sessions. “Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered.” Excerpted in Contemporary Moral Problems, ed. J.E. White. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003: 545–552; Fox, W. “The Deep EcologyEcofeminism Debate and its Parallels.” In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995: 269–289; Guha, R. “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique.” In Contemporary Moral Problems, ed. J.E. White. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003: 553–559; Lovelock, J.E. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982; Naess, A. “The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects.” In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995: 64–84; Naess, A. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements.” In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995: 151–155; Naess, A. “Self-Realization: An Ecological Approach to Being in the World.” In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995: 225–239; Naess, A. “The Third World, Wilderness, and Deep Ecology.” In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995: 397–407; Seed, J., J. Macy, P. Fleming, and A. Naess. Thinking Like a Mountain: Towards a Council of All Beings. Montpelier, VT: Capital City Press, 1988; Sessions, G. “Ecocentrism and the Anthropocentric Detour.” In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995: 156–183; Sessions, G., ed. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism. Boston: Shambhala, 1995; Snyder, G. “The Rediscovery of Turtle Island.” In Deep Ecology for The 21st Century: Readings on the Philosophy and Practice of the New Environmentalism, ed. G. Sessions. Boston: Shambhala, 1995: 454–462; White, L. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis.” Science 155 (1967): 1203–1207.

Stephen Potthof

DIVORCE Divorce is the legal termination of marriage, ending nearly half of all marriages, and affecting the lives of many children growing up in modern society.

134

|

Divorce

DIVORCE DEMOGRAPHICS Since 1980 the rate of divorce has been moderately declining to a rate of 17.7 divorces for every 1,000 married couples in 2005. The best estimate is that approximately four out of every 10 current marriages will end in divorce, with the likelihood of divorce being lowest among those who have been married the longest. The average length of marriages that end in divorce is seven years; the rate of divorce is highest for marriages of two to three years’ duration. While the decline in the divorce rate since 1980 is encouraging, it should also be noted that part of the decline can be explained by more persons choosing to cohabit rather than marry. Although a high percentage of cohabiting couples separate, the break-up does not impact the divorce rate. The delayed age at first marriage (25 for females and 26 for males) also contributes to the declining divorce rate. Although hard to document, we believe that the positive marriage movement that emphasizes the importance of premarital counseling and marital enrichment, also accounts for the declining rate of divorce. While there is no sure way of predicting whether a marriage will succeed, correlations have been found with a number of demographic factors such as age, ethnicity, income, occupation, social class, and level of education. A 2001 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, shows that 20 percent of first-marriage divorces now occur within five years. Those who marry young, especially in their teens, are much more likely to divorce than are those who marry in their 20s. A number of interrelated factors may also be at work here. Those who marry young are typically from a lower socioeconomic class (which increases the probability of financial difficulties); they marry after a very short engagement, and perhaps because of a pregnancy. Given their stage of individual development, most teenagers are socially and psychologically unprepared for a relationship as demanding as marriage. Inadequacies in role performance, unfaithfulness, disagreement, and lack of companionship have been found to contribute to divorce among the younger aged couples. Next to teenage marital instability, it is those who marry after age 30 who are surprisingly most unstable. Among the most common complaints of this group, are lack of agreement, and the tendency of a spouse to be domineering and/or critical. The underlying dynamic here is that perhaps those who marry late in life have become so set in their ways that they have a hard time adjusting to the expectations and demands that occur in sharing their lives with a spouse.

DUBIOUS ACHIEVEMENT Except for Russia, the United States has the highest divorce rate among developed countries. The annual divorce rate steadily rose from a low of one divorce for every 1,000 married couples in 1860, to a high of 22.5 divorces for every 1,000 married couples in 1979. The most dramatic rise in the divorce rate occurred between 1965 and 1979. It was especially pronounced among persons under age 45. Since 1980 there have been approximately 1,200,000 divorces each year; slightly less than half the number of marriages.

Divorce | 135

Those who marry in their mid-20s tend to have the most stable marriages. The divorce rate is low among men with little education, increases among those who have had some high-school training, and declines among men who have a college degree. In terms of ethnic differences, the divorce rate is highest among blacks, moderate among whites, and lowest among other ethnic groups, particularly those of Far Eastern origin. In terms of religion, divorce rates are lowest among Jews, moderate among Catholics, and highest among Protestants. Finally, heterogeneous marriages are more likely to end in divorce than are homogeneous marriages. In summary, divorce is more likely when there is a sizable age gap or differences in religion, social class, or ethnic origin. CAUSES There is no single cause of divorce. The causes are multiple, complex, and interrelated. Some have to do with the idiosyncrasies of the individuals; others involve social and cultural factors, such as the demographics we have just examined. Other things being equal, the lower the quality of the marriage, the greater the likelihood of divorce. Therefore, absence of any of the requisites for a strong marriage (e.g., commitment, family support, communication, and adaptability) could contribute to marital failure. Gottman (1994) claims to be able to predict divorce, simply by observing how couples deal with marital conflict. Couples who learn conflict skills will be more likely to work out their differences and stay married. The most frequent motives given for divorce center on relational issues, behavior problems, and problems about work and the division of labor, eliciting the suggestion that “we are moving into an era in which the ‘normalization of fragility’ will become central to people’s intimate relationships” (Hughes 2005, 69). A number of factors at the socio-cultural level may contribute to a culture of divorce and a divorce-prone society. Based on his research on divorce in the Netherlands, DeGraff and Kalmijn (2006) observe three important trends in modern societies—the normaliazation of divorce, the psychologization of relationships, and the emancipation of women. Other factors contributing toward a culture of divorce include a decline in viewing marriage as an unconditional commitment, a decline in the social stigma of divorce, the liberalization of divorce laws, the increased opportunity for emotional and physical intimacy that occurs in the work place leading to infidelity, and changing gender roles making wives less dependent economically on their husbands (Hughes, 2005; Yodanis, 2005). The Institute for American Values believes that the accumulated effect of divorce has eroded the foundation of American society. They believe the impact of the no-fault divorce policy has made it far too easy to divorce, leading to a culture that is comfortable with divorce. The modern/postmodern preoccupation of individualism and self-fulfillment, in contrast to covenant commitment and making sacrifices for the good of the relationship, leads to serious tension on marriage today. Also, unrealistic expectations, lack of egalitarian practices, loss of a community base to support family life, and the emergence of materialism,

136

|

Divorce

are dominant themes that take a toll on marriage. As can be seen, there are a multitude of reasons, some direct and some indirect, some conscious and some unconscious, some personal and some societal, for why people divorce. THE PROCESS The divorce process is often a highly conflictive time that has an inevitable negative impact upon children. Any antagonistic or abusive pathology that has previously existed in the marriage is likely to escalate during, and immediately after divorce proceedings, increasing the harm done to children. Seigler (2005, 61) found that divorce and custody proceedings are often accompanied by “a destructive spectrum of adversarial, antagonistic, and abusive behavior between cohabiting adults.” From a legal standpoint, divorce is enacted on a specific date, yet the ending of a marriage typically stretches over several years. As both a public and private process, divorce is most often a painful and crisis-producing event. It involves the death of a relationship and, as with most deaths, grieving, pain, and crisis are common by-products. It has been suggested that the divorce process typically goes through the following four-stage sequence. The first stage is that period before physical separation. Characterized as the erosion of love, it goes through stages of denial, anger, disillusionment, detachment, and bargaining attempts. The second stage is the point of actual separation, which again entails emotional responses like depression, anger, ambivalence, guilt, and regret. The third stage is the period between the separation and the legal process. Again, a time of mourning due to the finality occurs, along with major readjustments, such as economic and co-parenting arrangements, reorientation of lifestyle, and refocus on identity and emotional functioning for the divorcee. The fourth and final stage of personal recovery includes a restructuring and re-stabilization of lives, opening up new possibilities and goals. Spouses may go into a “second adolescence” phase, in which they are involved in the dating scene again. The deeply felt emotions that people experience throughout the four stages of a divorce make this an especially difficult time for all family members. While the marriage has come to an end, the two ex-spouses are very much alive, and must figure out their relationship with each other, their children, extended families and friends. Generally, the man is most negatively impacted in the social psychological realm, and the woman in the economic. THE EFFECT ON CHILDREN Once spouses have children, the divorce outlook becomes a more serious concern. All things being equal, children need and deserve to grow up in a family with two parents who love them and who love each other. The crucial question is, “What is in the best interest of children?” The long-term impact of divorce on children has been debated for the past 40 years. Some researchers are more optimistic than others about the adaptability

Divorce | 137

and resilience of children, while others emphasize the negative effect divorce has on them. Up to the late 1970s, there was some attempt to downplay the negative effects of divorce on children. This attitude was based on research suggesting that children may be better off in a happy one-parent home than in an unhappy twoparent home. It was surmised that a more stable environment, and a less disruptive one occurred once the neglectful or abusive father or mother were removed through divorce. There is overwhelming evidence that children from divorced homes fare worse than children from intact homes. However, the reason for this can be debated. One of the more complete pictures on the subject of how divorce impacts children is a report on a randomly selected sample of 1,500 young adults from divorced and intact homes. Elizabeth Marquardt reported these findings in her book, Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce (2005). She found that the children of divorce were four times more likely than those from intact families to agree with the statement, “My father has done things I find hard to forgive.” Although the difference was less dramatic, children of divorced, more than those from intact homes also agree that their mother “has done things that they find hard to forgive.” A well-documented longitudinal study by leading divorce researcher, Mavis Hetherington, reported in the book For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered (2002), that the changes in everyday life that follow divorce do have an initial negative impact on the children. The greatly altered behavior of their parents during and soon after divorce is a particularly difficult time. Since it takes most parents two or more years to recuperate from divorce, it is a time of adjustment, when both parents struggle with their self-esteem needs. Some spouses were prone to sexual acting-out, vengeful deeds against the former spouse, emotional outbursts, or periods of depression, and fearful concerns about their future and their finances. This period of transition takes a toll on the children, because parents are often not available to help them make emotional adjustments. LONGTERM DIVORCE ADJUSTMENT Hetherington’s longitudinal project spanning three decades lead her to the conclusion that divorce should not be viewed as a momentary event, but “as a lifelong process that has a continuing influence throughout the stages of divorce, single parenthood, remarriage, and stepfamily life” (Hetherington and Kelly 2002, cover page). According to the groundbreaking longitudinal research dating back to 1971, family and child psychologist, Judith Wallerstein (2005), was surprised to find that the tumult of parental breakup continued throughout adolescence and even into adulthood. Wallerstein (2005, 401) believes that “stressful parent-child relationships in the post divorce family together with the enduring effects of the troubled marriage and breakup lead to the acute anxieties about life and commitment that many children of divorce bring to relationships in their adult years.”

138

|

Divorce

A long-term effect of divorce seems to be that there is a greater risk for divorce among those adult children whose parents were divorced (Segrin, Taylor, and Altman 2005, 361). Another study reports that mothers from divorced homes had lower income levels, and lower levels of education compared with their intact counterparts (Nair and Murray 2005, 245). In light of the long term effects of divorce, it is well to heed the advice given by Connie Ahrons in her book We’re still family (2004) that “good divorces” allow adults and children to continue to live more or less harmoniously as a family. She notes the divorce reorganizes a family, but does not have to destroy it. The majority of children of divorce feel that their parents’ decision to divorce was the right one, and most did not wish their parents had remained married. In their book What About the Kids?, Wallerstein and Blakeslee (2003) encourage parents to observe how their children are doing, and to seek professional guidance for them if they see struggles with education, emotions, or behavior. Since multiple changes of roles occur after divorce, parents and grandparents are encouraged to work on their new roles in the children’s lives. A CHRISTIAN APPROACH TO DIVORCE Divorce, while not condoned in Scripture, has become common in today’s world. For this reason, it is vital to offer a Christian response. Within a Christian perspective, marriage and family relationships are to be based on a mutual covenant. When two people marry, God intends for the relationship to be a two-way unconditional commitment. It is God’s desire that covenant commitment lead to a relationship in which grace abounds. This then means that both spouses will undoubtedly fail each other, and forgiveness is an ongoing part of every marriage. Within this atmosphere of grace, spouses are challenged to strive for reciprocal engagement and empowerment through a mutual interdependence. Bringing their unique talents and gifts to the union, they use their resources to build each other up and strengthen their union. Out of this reciprocal empowerment, spouses come to know and be known in deeper ways that lead to secure, intimate bonding. God desires permanence in marriage, and married Christians must do all that they can to uphold their marriage. This ideal for Christian marriage is an honorable aspiration that can be achieved through God’s grace and intentional actions through the power of the Holy Spirit. However, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that there are no perfect people who completely live up to this ideal. All marriages are composed of two imperfect people, who will undoubtedly fail each other to one degree or another. All couples will struggle with their differences. While many learn to successfully deal with marital conflict and find the healing needed through therapy and community support, others are unable to overcome the obstacles of violence, disrespect, abuse, bitterness, addictions, cold detachment, and neglect. Brokenness is heaped upon brokenness, and anger, hurt, and bitterness begin to take on a life of their own. These marriages tend to spin in the direction of conditionality and demand, judgmental criticism and non-acceptance stances,

Divorce | 139

possessive power and coercive power struggle, and emotional distancing maneuvers, until eventually the marriage is severed. While marital dissolution is surely a spiritual problem, we must resist the temptation to spiritualize in a simplistic way. Human beings are complex creatures, and there is a web of complicated social, psychological, and spiritual factors in the dissolution of any marriage. The marital struggle begins to eat away at the person, as well as destroy the relationship. Sadly to say, divorce becomes a radical choice. In their own eyes—and in the eyes of the Christian community, spouses confess they have failed. The question now becomes how we, as a family of faith, relate to those who walk through that valley of the death of a marriage? To begin with, we acknowledge that we live in a broken world in which we all fail in many aspects of our lives. Failure seems to be acknowledged in many areas of life, with the exception of marriage. Unfortunately, we reserve a particular stigma for divorce, and those most in need of support feel judged and unacceptable to the church community. The redemptive side of failure is not applied as readily as it ought to be. Jesus must serve as our model when it comes to our response to failed marriage. Jesus did not condemn the woman at the well for her unsuccessful marriages, but offered redemption and a new beginning (John 4). To be legalistic, rather than offer grace, forgiveness, and compassion is unacceptable. Ray Anderson and Dennis Guernsey (1985, 101) note that Jesus presented the basis of marriage from the perspective of the command of God: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:6). They conclude: In saying this, Jesus removed both marriage and divorce from the status of being under a law, and reminded his listeners that all people are accountable to God in thought, word, and deed, and not least of all in the “one flesh” relation of marriage. Viewed from this perspective, it is clear that there can be no “rules” by which marriage can be dissolved, any more than there are marriages which can be sanctified before God by observing certain legalities. Wherever Jesus talks about divorce (Matt. 5:31–32; 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Luke 16:18), the clear thrust is that marriage is of the Lord and is not to be broken. Christ calls couples to fidelity in marriage as a lifelong commitment; he does not have in view, however, a marriage of legalism that only entails commitment to the institution and not to the relationship. Marriage is merely a human structure and we must never focus more on preserving a structure than caring about the individuals themselves. The Christian message of forgiveness and restoration must be generously offered to divorced persons and their children. These members of our church body need us more than ever during this painful experience. We must be accepting and lovingly welcome them into our midst as God’s family. We must never deny them hope for wholeness and restoration. As Garland, Richmond, and Garland (1986) state:

140

|

Divorce

If it is the case that marriage was made for the blessing of humankind, and not humankind for marriage, it would seem that one who has failed in marriage might have another opportunity to remarry. Any moral superiority that the nondivorced person might feel toward the divorced who remarry is undermined by Jesus’ claim that everyone who lusts after another is guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28). Every spouse has broken commitments to the partner, and every relationship experiences alienation from unresolved differences. (p. 171) Further Reading: Ahrons, C. We’re Still Family: What Grown Children Have to Say about Their Parent’s Divorce. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2004; Anderson, R., and D. Guernsey. On Being Family: Essays on a Social Theology of the Family. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985; DeGraff, P. and M. Kalmijn. “Divorce Motives in a Period of Rising Divorce: Evidence from a Dutch Life-history Survey.” Journal of Family Issues 27 (2006): 483–505; Garland, D., S. Richmond, and D. E. Garland. Beyond Companionship: Christians in Marriage. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986; Gottman, J. What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994; Hetherington, E. M., and J. Kelly. For Better or for Worse: Divorce Reconsidered. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002; Hughes, K. 2005. “The Adult Children of Divorce: Pure Relationships and Family Values?” Journal of Sociology 41 (2005): 69–86; Marquardt, E. Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. New York: Crown, 2005; Nair, H. and A. Murray. 2005. “Predictors of Attachment Security in Preschool Children from Intact and Divorced Families.” Journal of Genetic Psychology 16 (2005): 245–263; Popenoe, D. and B. Whitehead. The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America, 2003. New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, 2003; Popenoe, D. and B. Whitehead. The State of our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America, 2004. New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, 2004; Popenoe, D. and B. Whitehead. The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America, 2005. New Brunswick, NJ: National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, 2005; Segrin, C., M. Taylor, and J. Altman. “Social Cognitive Mediators and Relational Outcomes; Associated with Parental Divorce.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22 (2005): 361–377; Seigler, A. “Home is Where the Hurt Is: Developmental Consequences of Domestic Conflict and Violence on Children and Adolescents.” In A Handbook of Divorce and Custody: Forensic, Development, and Clinical Perspectives, eds. L. Gunsberg and P. Hymowitz. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, 2005: 61-80; Wallerstein, J. “Growing Up in the Divorced Family.” Clinical Social Work Journal 33 (2005): 301–418; Wallerstein, J. S., and S. Blakeslee. What about the kids: Raising your children before, during, and after divorce. NY: Hyprion, 2003; Yodanis, C. “Divorce Culture and Marital Gender Equality: A Cross-national Study.” Gender and Society 19 (2005): 644–659.

Jack Balswick and Judith K. Balswick

E EUTHANASIA AND PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE In general, one can choose death by euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Broadly understood, euthanasia means “good death,” however current usage depicts a specific kind of dying, which is usually accomplished by the act of someone other than the one who dies. Physician-assisted suicide is a particular form of suicide, or dying, where a physician, who possesses relevant knowledge and skills, assists the one who wishes to die. Various religious perspectives offer ways to deal with the challenges presented by death and dying, pain and suffering, freedom and responsibility in health care, and the value of human life. All of these are present at the intersection of euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and religion. Typically, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide occur in the context of health care when patients face death and dying. Death and dying are fundamental to (and inevitable in) the human condition. Historically, death and dying happened as a consequence of incurable disease, unforeseen accident, war, or murderous action. With euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, however, one can take control over the circumstances, the mode, and the health state at the time of death. This represents a technological transformation of the dying process: a transformation that many argue brings about individual and social goods (philosopher Daniel Callahan refers to this kind of phenomenon as “technological brinkmanship.” See Callahan [2000], 40–41). As the Hippocratic Oath indicates, the ethical, legal, and theological issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not necessarily new. Dating back several centuries, the Oath prohibits a Hippocratic physician from prescribing poisons and other materials for his patient (See Edelstein 1967; Rietjens et al.

141

142

|

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

2006; Ramsey 1974; Campbell 1994). Interestingly, this is not lost in a Christian version of the Hippocratic Oath: “Neither will I give poison to anybody though asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a plan” (“The Hippocratic Oath Insofar as a Christian May Swear It” 1998, 108). Nevertheless, the advances in medicine have brought new energy to this topic. Because many diseases remain incurable, the best that health care providers can do is manage one’s painful symptoms as his or her illness marches on a path, often with intense suffering, before it ends in death. Many patients who have metastatic and terminal cancer experience this tragedy. For many commentators, this represents an intolerable reality. Instead, they wish to take matters into their own hands and seek voluntary euthanasia or physician-assistance in their suicide. From the perspective of various religions, these two practices—euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide—raise several ethical, legal, and theological issues. However, before discussing these issues, the author will review the traditional distinctions of the term euthanasia. Then the author will identify and describe the major ethical, legal, and theological issues in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Finally, the author will conclude with an overview of public policy considerations regarding both of these practices. TRADITIONAL DISTINCTIONS OF EUTHANASIA Here, we understand euthanasia to be the voluntary and intentional ending of a person’s life. Many ethicists have made three critical distinctions in the debates over euthanasia. First, there is a distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia happens either by or at the request of the recipient of the act. Involuntary euthanasia occurs without the consent of the individual, either because the patient is incompetent, because the patient’s wishes are not known, or because it is a policy to end the life of a person with certain traits (e.g., Nazi euthanasia policies). Most discussions of euthanasia reject any consideration of involuntary euthanasia, particularly in this last sense. Second, there is a distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when someone performs an action that results in the death of the patient. Thus, one understands active euthanasia positively as the commission of a death-inducing action. Passive euthanasia occurs when someone does not perform an action, which results in the death of the patient. Thus, one understands passive euthanasia negatively as the omission of a life-preserving action. An example of active euthanasia is a doctor’s injecting a lethal dose of drugs into a patient to bring about the death of the patient. An example of passive euthanasia is a doctor’s intent to kill a patient by refusing to administer antibiotics to a patient suffering from a treatable form of pneumonia. (There may be other morally justifiable reasons and circumstances why the physician would not provide antibiotics to a patient without intending the patient’s death per se, but for the sake of this example, we will consider the pneumonia to be the patient’s only diagnosis.)

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide | 143

Third, there is a distinction between direct and indirect euthanasia. Here, one’s intention plays a key role in establishing whether the action is direct or indirect. In addition, the Principle of Double Effect is applicable, which enables one to determine the nature of the agent’s intent and whether the action is morally permissible or not. (In short, ethicists use the Principle of Double Effect to determine whether an act that produces both good and bad effects is morally permissible.) In direct euthanasia, an agent intends the death of the patient as the sole end. In indirect euthanasia, an agent does not intend the death of the patient either as the end sought or as a means to a further end. However, many prefer not to use the term indirect euthanasia because this may confuse foregoing or withdrawing treatment with the intentional killing of a patient. Historically, many confuse the last two distinctions: an active euthanasia act was direct, a passive euthanasia act was indirect. However, this is misleading because (1) there are two sets of criteria that distinguish these two terms (i.e., observation in the former, and the Principle of Double Effect in the latter) and (2) one distinction is descriptive of the action (i.e., commission versus omission), the other distinction is evaluative of the action (i.e., direct euthanasia is not morally permissible whereas an indirect euthanasia might be). Therefore, some ethicists suggest that these distinctions remain separate and avoided. Additional reasons exist for avoiding these terms and they include the following: First, using the generic term euthanasia to speak of both direct killing and withdrawing therapy is confusing methodologically and psychologically. Second, many ethicists debate whether there is in fact a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Limiting the term euthanasia to the intentional killing of an individual at least circumvents that debate. Third, some ethicists think it is better to identify the moral legitimacy of foregoing or withdrawing a therapy as a separate issue. In this instance, one is focusing on benefit to the patient, which precludes considerations of killing the patient. Many bioethicists frequently discuss the ethics of voluntary euthanasia in connection with the ethics of physician-assisted suicide. In fact, many see physician-assisted suicide as a form of voluntary euthanasia. However, there are key differences. First, suicide is a self-induced interruption of the life process and typically occurs in a nonmedical context; that is, many individuals who commit suicide in general are not suffering from a life threatening disease. Second, while voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide may share motivations (e.g., mercy, compassion, and respect of autonomy), the ways in which one performs them differ significantly. In voluntary euthanasia, a physician or another person commits the act. In physician-assisted suicide, a physician cooperates but does not commit the act. Instead, the physician helps the patient commit the act. Third, many debate the distinction between voluntary euthanasia and palliative care. This does not occur in the context of physician-assisted suicide. Therefore, there are important issues to untangle in considering voluntary euthanasia in the continuum of care in modern hospitals. There is less of a need to disentangle issues between physician-assisted suicide and other forms of medical care. Indeed, one study compared the clinical practices of terminal sedation (which is, according to the study, a palliative care protocol that induces a coma to relieve

144

|

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

pain) and euthanasia in the Netherlands (Rietjens et al. 2006). These researchers found that both practices frequently involve patients who suffer from cancer. On the one hand, clinicians tended to use terminal sedation to address severe physical and psychological suffering in dying patients; on the other hand, clinicians tended to engage in euthanasia to protect patients’ dignity during their last phase of life. In addition, clinicians employing terminal sedation tended to order benzodiazepines and morphine; clinicians participating in euthanasia tended to order barbiturates. Furthermore, the time interval between the administration of the drug and the patients’ deaths ranged from 1 to 24 hours up to 3 to 7 days for terminally sedated patients and tended to be less than 1 hour for euthanized patients. ETHICAL ISSUES Several ethical issues involved in the debates over euthanasia and physicianassisted suicide remain controversial despite the lengthy debates over them. These issues relate to the various legal and theological issues, too. Here is a survey of some major ethical issues: human dignity, patient autonomy, prevention of harm, protection of the marginalized, and protection of professional integrity in health care. First, among the most well known ethical issues in the debates over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is human dignity. Despite its pervasive use, the term suffers from ambiguity. At least two fundamental ways exist in which human dignity functions in ethical debates: as an expression (1) of intrinsic worthiness or (2) of attributed worthiness. In the first sense, one may understand human dignity as an expression of intrinsic or inherent worthiness. This may directly relate to certain religious beliefs; in the Judeo-Christian traditions, the belief that God created humankind in His image and likeness translates to an inviolable intrinsic worth. In contrast, one may understand human dignity as an attributed worth. On the one hand, one may suffer indignity as a result of the conditions or properties of one’s life: for example, many would consider it undignified to live with a very poor quality of life as in complete dependence on machines to live and bed-ridden. On the other hand, one may suffer indignity as the consequence of others’ actions: for example, ignoring the incontinence of a bed-bound patient or neglecting senile elderly patients because of some repugnance to old age. As a form of intrinsic worth, one may argue against euthanasia and physicianassisted suicide because such actions violate human dignity: intentionally killing a patient can never be an expression of respect for human dignity. As a form of attributed worth, one may argue for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide because such actions may prevent such indignities. This is why some proponents suggest that euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is a form of “death with dignity.” However, in a now famous article, “The indignity of ‘death with dignity,’ ” the late theologian Paul Ramsey refuted this claim (Ramsey 1974). Second, patient, or personal, autonomy relates to human dignity; here, autonomy is an exercise of self-rule whereby one controls the circumstances, the

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide | 145

mode, and his or her health status at the time of his or her death. The fear of losing control over one’s life is a powerful motivator for euthanasia or physicianassisted suicide. Individuals who seek physician-assisted suicide often do not want to live long enough to experience that loss of control and independence. For them, living in such circumstances could be a nightmare. When proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide seek a “right to die,” their concept of patient autonomy supports this right. In these ways, one uses patient autonomy in support of voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. However, this may confuse different notions of freedom. Indeed, the loss of control may seem like a loss of freedom; but, in general, this is only one kind of freedom lost: the freedom of choice. Alternatively, if one thinks of freedom as freedom of being—or freedom to be fully human— then a choice of death may be the ultimate imprisonment. That is, if human beings are fundamentally relational (a belief prevalent among the world’s major religions), then a choice to end all of one’s relationships in choosing death would be an act that denies a basic aspect of what it means to be human. Notwithstanding this alternative, if individuals experience suffering and indignity (i.e., the loss of control or the corresponding fear) as they approach death during a terminal illness, this may be more of a critique of society’s inability to address the needs of the dying (Cahill 2005). In this sense, society may be effectively abandoning patients by not giving them the support and environment they need to flourish even in the last moments of physical life. Such circumstances make euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide logical choices. Third, the prevention of harm is another ethical issue one finds in the debates over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. There are two aspects to this issue. On the one hand, proponents call for legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (or both) as a way to regulate the practices. The intent behind this is to prevent harms to patients that are a direct consequence of the acts of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide themselves. For example, without proper training or sufficient regulations, a patient may obtain and use an inadequate dose of lethal drugs. This may cause harm because such a dose might not induce death and could leave the patient in an undesirable state (e.g., a coma). On the other hand, proponents argue for euthanasia and physicianassisted suicide as a means of preventing harms related to the illness the patient has or the treatments that the patient would need to endure (e.g., chemotherapy). In this sense, the patient prevents the harms by bypassing both the experience of the disease process and the risks or burdens of the treatments for the disease. Of course, some opponents to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide find this line of reasoning difficult to accept. For them, it seems illogical to prevent harm by causing the end of the patient’s life. For some, the options of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are seen as failures of the health care system to deal adequately with the pain and symptoms of terminal illness and the dying process. Many claim that with appropriate and accessible palliative care (pain and symptom management) and hospice care, the need or desire for euthanasia

146

|

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

and physician-assisted suicide would diminish. However, this may not be as true as some hope: as discussed above, a principal concern is the loss of control, not the experience of pain per se. Fourth, the protection of marginalized groups from a socially instituted policy of euthanasia constitutes another ethical issue. Here, the principal concern is to protect those who do not exercise autonomy in choosing euthanasia and who, in fact, may resist it. Therefore, this ethical issue results when involuntary euthanasia becomes a social practice supported by political power. This particular issue lives in the shadows of the Holocaust and Nazi euthanasia policies. Despite this tragic episode in human history, contemporary debates persist. For example, some proponents claim that involuntary euthanasia may be justifiable for the severely handicapped. This issue also incorporates elements of a slippery slope argument. In this case, opponents claim that legalizing voluntary euthanasia and physicianassisted suicide jeopardizes the disabled and other marginalized groups because such decisions reflect a belief that certain lives are not worth living. Opponents are concerned that the disabled community represents certain kinds of life that those who would support euthanasia would not want to live. Thus, even if legalized euthanasia was restricted to voluntary forms and physicianassisted suicide, such practices are only a short step away from involuntary euthanasia of the severely disabled and then (with one more short step) from the moderately or even slightly disabled. For these opponents, it would be quite possible to slip and tumble down the slope to widespread involuntary euthanasia. To take this perspective further, if involuntary euthanasia of the severely handicapped never became a reality, there remains a concern that a culture that supports voluntary euthanasia would undermine programs and relationships that promote the livelihood and well-being of persons who are physically and mentally challenged. Thus, there may be decreasing support for social assistance programs and increasing pressure to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide. Finally, the practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide may undermine the professional integrity of medicine (and other health care professions like nursing). On the one hand, health care professionals do not want to abandon their patients at the end-of-life. On the other hand, health care professionals—as helping and healing professionals providing care—do not want to confuse their role or contribute in any way to an erosion of their professional ethos as healers. One concern is that this erosion may have a social consequence of confusing the role of healer and the role of executioner. In these circumstances, the trust in the physician-patient relationship is at risk: if physicians can no longer deal with death and dying appropriately and abandon their patients, patients will not trust doctors to be with them as they face their most difficult health crisis. Similarly, if a doctor supports euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, a patient may be confronted with a doctor who may see euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as the “easy way out” and may not trust his or her professional judgment about what is in his or her best interests.

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide | 147

LEGAL ISSUES IN THE UNITED STATES In 1991 and 1992, citizens in Washington and California, respectively, voted on two referenda; these referenda sought to sanction legally both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, or physician-assisted dying. In both cases, voters defeated these referenda by very narrow margins—about 54 percent to 46 percent in both cases. However, in 1994, the citizens of Oregon were asked to vote on Measure 16, which asked, “Shall law allow terminally ill adult Oregon patients voluntary informed choice to obtain physician’s prescription for drugs to end life?” (Quoted in Campbell 1994, 9). In this case, the measure passed, which ultimately led to the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (DDA) (See “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act,” in Beauchamp et al. 2008, 404–6). The critical difference between this Oregon statute and those proposed in Washington and California is its restriction to physician-assisted suicide. When Oregonian voters approved this measure in November of 1994, by a very narrow margin, Oregon at the time became “the only place in the world where doctors may legally help patients end their lives” (Egan 1994, A1). However, that was not the end of the story. The day before the measure was to become law, its enactment was “blocked by a court challenge.” In August 1995, a federal judge ruled the measure unconstitutional because “with state-sanctioned and physician-assisted death at issue, some ‘good results’ cannot outweigh other lives lost due to unconstitutional errors and abuses” (“Judge Strikes Down Oregon’s Suicide Law” A15). In March 1996, the legal situation changed radically for the nine western states in the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, including Oregon. In an 8 to 3 ruling, this court struck down a Washington State statute that made assisting in a suicide a felony. While this ruling held only for the states in the Ninth Circuit, a very critical precedent was set. The grounds for the ruling were privacy and autonomy. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the majority, said: “Like the decision of whether or not to have an abortion, the decision how and when to die is one of ‘the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime,’ a choice ‘central to personal dignity and autonomy’ ” (Lewin 1996, A14). The ruling also argued that not only doctors should be protected from prosecution “but others like pharmacists and family members ‘whose services are essential to help the terminally ill patient obtain and take’ medication to hasten death” (Lewin 1996, A14). Thus, the window opened for a round of appeals and argumentation. Later, a unanimous ruling of the three-judge Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reinforced this ruling in April 1996. This court stated, “that doctors in New York State could legally help terminally ill patients commit suicide in certain circumstances” (Bruni 1996, A1). As the ruling was appealed, a critical country-wide debate began. Additionally, Michigan passed a law explicitly prohibiting physician-assisted suicide; this was in response to the activities of Jack Kevorkian, whose activities include physician-assisted suicide. However, this law has passed out of existence because of specific time limits. Furthermore, Kevorkian was brought to trial for acts committed while this law was in effect but was found not guilty based on

148

|

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

the jury’s decision that his intent was to relieve pain not to cause death. Notwithstanding this, another murder charge was brought against Kevorkian in 1999. In this case, he was convicted and sentenced to prison. Finally, three United States Supreme Court cases have become landmark cases in the legal and ethical debates over physician-assisted suicide. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicated on two related cases (Beauchamp et al. 2008). First, the main question before the Court in Vacco v. Quill was whether New York’s prohibition on assisting suicide violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that it did not. Second, the main question before the Court in Washington v. Glucksberg was whether the “liberty” (i.e., the right to refuse wanted life-saving medical treatment) specifically protected by the Due Process Clause includes a right to commit suicide, which includes a right to assistance in suicide. The court held that the “right” to assistance in suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. In the 2006 case of Gonzalez v. Oregon, the main question before the Court was whether the Controlled Substances Act allows the U.S. Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, notwithstanding a state law prohibiting it (Beauchamp et al. 2008, 413–18). The Court of Appeals held that the Interpretive Rule exercised by the Attorney General to restrict use of certain drugs was invalid; the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals was correct: its decision was affirmed. In summary, these cases have three implications. One, these cases demonstrate that it is not unconstitutional for states to ban assisted suicide while at the same time protect patients’ rights to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Two, one cannot claim that physician-assisted suicide is a fundamental liberty interest protected in the same way as the right to refuse treatment. Finally, the Executive branch at the federal level cannot use the Controlled Substances Act to restrict physician-assisted suicide at the state level (which basically protected the practice of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon). CHOOSING DEATH AND RELIGION: THEOLOGICAL ISSUES Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide evoke several theological issues that affect moral reflection. One can organize these issues under four themes: the problem of death, the problem of suffering, the problem of sovereignty, and the sanctity of life. All of these themes and issues, however, are very complex; unfortunately, their presentation here will necessarily be cursory and reflect a rudimentary outline of their depth. To begin, the problem of death manifests itself in a variety of ways. For one, Kenneth Kramer identifies three different kinds of death: physical, psychological, and spiritual (Kramer 1988). In the debates over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, all of these, in one way or another, contribute to how one understands the consequences of intentionally choosing death. For example, does causing physical death by physician-assisted suicide entail causing the patient’s spiritual death as well? Additionally, the ways in which one understands the mortality

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide | 149

and immortality of human consciousness is reflected in the problem of death. For example, one may see death as a transitional phase between this life and an “other life,” which may be an afterlife, a resurrected life, a reincarnated life, and so on. Moreover, the disvalue of death itself, which is reflected in Ramsey’s comments on the “indignity” of dying and the immorality of unjustly causing death (i.e., murder), is relevant to the discussions of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Finally, the choice for death in euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide occurs between two socially constructed extreme perspectives of human life: absolute protection of physical life and complete callousness in ending physical life. Here, the notion that there is ultimate value in (physical) life itself is the foundation for an extreme position of vitalism: for example, protecting human physical life at all costs and regardless of its conditions. Religious beliefs of transitory phases of this life and death, which is usually built on some belief of communion or experience with an ultimate reality (e.g., St. Thomas’ description of the Beatific Vision), suggest that vitalism may not be an appropriate response to the inevitable demise of the physical life of human beings. Indeed, if a religion sees that the fullness of human life is reached in the next life, then clinging to this physical life would be to deny (or, at least, obstruct) that fulfillment. Vitalism might work against an appropriate, timely, and ultimately good end to human physical existence. Nevertheless, the opposite end of the spectrum would be to hasten the death of an individual. This is represented by the choice for death in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Thus, opponents to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide may run the risk of vitalism and become a death-denying culture whereas proponents to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide may run the risk of becoming a death-embracing culture. Next, the problem of suffering emerges from the intersection of religion and the social issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in two specific ways: in the causes of suffering and the meanings of suffering. Since individuals and institutions that seek euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide often do so in response to either real or threatened suffering, an understanding of suffering itself is central to how one evaluates euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as responses to it. First, there are different ways one can understand the causes of suffering. Theologically, this relates to the problem of evil in the world. On the one hand, one may find it difficult to reconcile a belief in an all-loving, allpowerful God and the reality that He “allows” innocent people to suffer (e.g., as the result of a natural disaster or serious illness). On the other hand, one may acknowledge that some (or all) suffering in the world relates somehow—directly or indirectly—to humankind’s free will. The way one understands the causes of suffering shapes how he or she views suffering as a motivation for (or against) euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Second, there are varieties of meanings one can have of suffering. One religiously based view sees suffering as a form of penance for one’s transgressions or sins against himself, his neighbors, and/or God. Thus, the experience of suffering can have a salvific, or cathartic, connotation as one approaches what he or she may perceive to be ultimate judgment in death. This is a problematic view for a variety of reasons. For example, people who are dying are usually not free to choose which pain or suffering they

150

|

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

experience, which may undermine its authenticity as a religious prescription for sins already committed. Furthermore, viewing end-of-life suffering as catharsis may not be commensurate with the religion’s conception of a forgiving God. Another religiously based view of suffering sees such suffering, or just the experience of physical or psychological pain, as an opportunity for grace to become manifest. Christians see this view in Jesus’ healing and teaching ministry. In the Gospel of John, for example, when they encounter a blind man, Jesus’ disciples ask him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus’ response suggests this notion of an ‘opportunity for grace’: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed to him” (John 9:1–3, New Revised Standard Version). In summary, the problem of suffering is an integral one to the moral problems and social issues posed by euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Indeed, what suffering does is to call upon everyone to respond to and relate appropriately to those who are experiencing pain and suffering as their lives transition out of this one. Thus, in light of the long tradition of social justice in the Jewish and Christian traditions, access to adequate and appropriate palliative care and hospice is a principal component to the debates over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Following the problems of death and of suffering, another major theological theme involved in debates over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is the problem of sovereignty. This theme asks how humans should exercise their responsibility (that is, their moral agency) when confronted with the problems of death and suffering. To answer this question, religious thinkers have described various models. On the one hand, humans may lay claim to total control and presume ownership and dominion over everything including when life and death occur. Thus by adopting this perspective, proponents of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide see those interventions as appropriate to human moral agency. Opponents to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide would claim that those interventions are beyond the scope of human sovereignty, and the beginning and ending of life properly remain in the domain of divine sovereignty. Here, the critique of “playing God” becomes evident. While playing God can mean different things, including a positive conception (e.g., “play God as God would play”), it generally means a negative evaluation of one who is or is attempting to usurp the rights (and therefore sovereignty) of the divine (Shannon 2005; see also, Verhey 1998). On the other hand, humans may neglect their responsibility and deny any control they really have thereby putting it all “in the hands of God.” In its extreme form, this can deny any human moral agency (and therefore human sovereignty over what is proper for humans). The problem here is that this may result in inadequate end-of-life care including therapy, palliation, and hospice. In this case, the critique of irresponsibility, or improper moral discernment, becomes obvious. The last theological issue is the sanctity of life. The sanctity of life intimately relates to Judeo-Christian notions of human dignity based on the idea that God creates human beings in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). The idea that human life possesses “sanctity” suggests that it is special and requires extra moral sensitivities when it is endangered or nearing its existential boundaries

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide | 151

(i.e., at the beginning of life following conception and at the ending of life in the dying process). However, this concept is often contrasted with a concern for a person’s quality of life. So, proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide may seek such interventions to end their lives because if they do not they may be forced to live a kind of life (at a quality level) unacceptable to them. Many ethicists have debated the logic of both a sanctity-of-life position, which may ignore the miserable conditions that a dying person may experience, and a quality-of-life position, which may ignore the inherent worth of human life regardless of its condition. Indeed, one author argues that these two perspectives are complimentary and not irreconcilable. Any religiously justified position in the debates of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide will need to account for both the sanctity of life and the quality of life perspectives. PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS In the end, there are many public policy considerations in the debates over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. However, there are four major considerations. The first consideration is, of course, the legalization and institutionalization of euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide. Here, institutionalization means the systematic integration of those interventions as organizational policy and professional practices. The legal issues in the U.S. mentioned above will continue to shape the possibility of legalization (or criminalization) of these practices. The second consideration is the fair availability and access to alternatives at the endof-life; that is, public policy on euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide ought to consider adequate home health services, palliative care, and hospice as legitimate options to euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide. A third consideration includes adequate and necessary protections for marginalized individuals, especially the disabled, elderly and sick in society. If any public policy is to legitimize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, robust protections for these marginalized groups will be necessary. Finally, a fourth consideration is the protections for the health care professions, which ought to seek a separation between the roles of helping and healing and the roles of death-causing or -assisting. This will include sensitivity to the potential for conflicts of interest, reimbursement schedules, and the authenticity of both patient and provider judgments that choosing death is freely chosen. Many of the safeguards in Oregon’s statute recognize these and other procedural issues involved in implementing a policy of physician-assisted suicide. See also Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies; Health Care Reform. Further Reading: Beauchamp, Tom L., LeRoy Walters, Jeffrey P. Kahn, and Anna C. Mastroianni. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008; Bruni, Frank. “Federal Ruling Allows Doctors to Prescribe Drugs to End Life.” New York Times. April 3, 1996, A1; Burt, Robert A. “Death Made Too Easy.” New York Times. November 16, 1994, A19; Cahill, Lisa Sowle. Theological Bioethics: Participation, Justice, and Change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005; Callahan, Daniel. The Troubled Dream of Life: In Search of a Peaceful Death. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000; Callahan, Daniel. What Kind of Life? The Limits

152

|

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide of Medical Progress. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1995; Campbell, Courtney S. “The Oregon Trail to Death: Measure 16,” Commonweal 121, no. 14 (August 1994); Deliens, L., F. Mortier, J. Bilsen, M. Cosyns, R. Stichele, J. Vanoverloop, and K. Ingels. “End-of-Life Decisions in Medical Practice in Flanders, Belgium: A Nationwide Survey.” The Lancet 356, no. 9244 (2000): 1806–1811; DuBose, Edwin R. Physician Assisted Suicide: Religious and Public Policy Perspectives. Chicago, IL: Park Ridge Center, 1999; Edelstein, Ludwig, “The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation and Interpretation.” In Ancient Medicine, eds. Oswei Temkin and C. Lillian Temkin. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967; Egan, Timothy. “Suicide Law Placing Oregon on Several Uncharted Paths.” New York Times. November 25, 1994. A1; Foley, Kathleen, and Herbert Hendin, Eds. The Case Against Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002; Gevers, Sjef. “Physician Assisted Suicide: New Developments in the Netherlands.” Bioethics. July 1995. 9 (3): 309–312; Gorsuch, Neil M. The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006; Haverkate, Ilinka, Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Agnes van der Heide, Piet J. Kostense, Gerrit van der Wal, and Paul J. van der Maas. “Refused and granted requests for euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands: interview study with structured questionnaire.” British Medical Journal. October 7, 2000. 321:865–866; “The Hippocratic Oath Insofar as a Christian May Swear It,” in On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, 2nd ed., eds. Stephen E. Lammers and Allen Verhey. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998; Hurst, Samia A., and Alex Mauron. “Assisted suicide and euthanasia in Switzerland: allowing a role for non-physicians.” British Medical Journal. February 1, 2003. 326:271– 273; Jochemsen, Henk. “Euthanasia in Holland: An Ethical Critique of the New Law.” Journal of Medical Ethics. December 1994. 20 (4):212–217; “Judge Strikes Down Oregon’s Suicide Law.” New York Times. August 4, 1995. A15; Keown, John, Ed. Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, Clinical, and Legal Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1995; Kramer, Kenneth. The Sacred Art of Dying: How World Religions Understand Death. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1988; Lewin, Tamar. “Ruling Sharpens Debate on ‘Right to Die’.” New York Times. March 8, 1996. A14; McLean, Sheila. The Case for Physician Assisted Suicide. London, UK: Pandora, 1997; Mitchell, John B. Understanding Assisted Suicide: Nine Issues to Consider. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2007; Oregon Department of Human Services. “Eighth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.” http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year8.pdf. Published March 9, 2006. Accessed February 19, 2008; Quill, Timothy. Death and Dignity: Making Choices and Taking Charge. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company, 1993; Quill, Timothy. “Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making.” New England Journal of Medicine. March 7, 1991. 324:691–694; Ramsey, Paul. “The Indignity of ‘Death with Dignity,’” Hastings Center Studies 2, no. 2 (May 1974): 47–62; Rietjens, Judith A.C., Johannes J.M. van Delden, Agnes van der Heide, Astrid M. Vrakking, Bregje D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Paul J. van der Maas, and Gerrit van der Wal. “Terminal Sedation and Euthanasia: A Comparison of Clinical Practices.” Archives of Internal Medicine 166(2006): 749–753; Scherer, Jennifer M. Euthanasia and the Right to Die: A Comparative View. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999; Schotsmans, Paul, and Tom Meulenbergs, Eds. Euthanasia and Palliative Care in the Low Countries. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters Publishers, 2005; Shannon, Thomas. “Playing God or Playing Human?,” in Contemporary Issues in Bioethics: A Catholic Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005; Simons, Marlise. “Dutch Parliament Approves Law Permitting Euthanasia.” New York Times. February 10, 1995. A10; Singer, Peter. “The Legislation of Voluntary Euthanasia in the Northern Territory.” Bioethics. 1995.

Evangelical Christianity in America | 9 (5): 419–424; Verhey, Allen. “‘Playing God’ and Invoking a Perspective.” In On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics, 2nd ed., eds. Stephen E. Lammers and Allen Verhey Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998; Walter, James J., and Thomas A. Shannon. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics: A Catholic Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlfield, 2005; Walter, James J., and Thomas A. Shannon, eds. Quality of Life: The New Medical Dilemma. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990; Yount, Lisa. Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. New York: Facts On File, 2000.

Nicholas J. Kockler EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA Evangelical Christians make up 23 percent of the American population— approximately 69.5 million people in 2007. The words evangelical and evangelicalism come from the New Testament expression for good news or gospel. A related English word is evangelism, which describes a variety of activities that are aimed at converting non-Christians. In that sense, evangelical Christianity is distinguished by its efforts to spread the Christian faith. The term evangelical has evolved in meaning over time. The word first appeared in the sixteenth century to describe Catholic thinkers who challenged the Church to replace its beliefs and practices with more biblical ones. After that, the word referred to Protestants who rejected the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and held to the Bible alone as their authority. In seventeenthcentury Germany, the word distinguished Christians who followed Martin Luther’s teachings (Lutherans) from those who embraced John Calvin’s theology (Reformed or Calvinist Christians). Today in Europe, the term evangelical is a synonym of Protestant. The meaning of the term also evolved in North America. From the sixteenth through mid-nineteenth centuries, evangelical referred to all Protestants. After the Civil War, the term all but disappeared, and Protestants were either fundamentalists or modernists. The word reappeared in the 1950s. Scholars sometimes use the prefix neo (neo-evangelical) to highlight the difference between the term’s newer and older uses. The term neo-evangelical refers to a certain type of Protestant. Like fundamentalists, they believe that the Bible is historically accurate and theologically authoritative. However, they also accept the findings of secular disciplines like science. Today in the United States evangelical has expanded to include fundamentalists (the religious right), neo-evangelicals (or moderate evangelicals), Pentecostals (including charismatics), the evangelical left, and a substantial portion of the so-called emerging-church movement. EVANGELICALISM IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE It is virtually impossible to grasp the complexities of contemporary evangelicalism without considering its diverse past. In a word, American evangelicalism has had several “beginnings.” Each of these points of origin has contributed to the shape of present-day evangelicalism.

153

154

|

Evangelical Christianity in America

The Rise of Puritanism and the Great Awakening Most Christians in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century America were Puritans. They migrated from England in search of religious freedom. A series of revivals, known as the Great Awakening, swept the colonies between 1730 and 1745. Puritan pastor Jonathan Edwards is one of the best-known figures of that time. He accounted for this “surprising work of God” in theological terms. He stressed that God was the initiator of these religious experiences, and that human beings were passive recipients. Edwards taught that while people had to submit to God’s saving influence, they had no power to accept or reject these divine blessings. In other words, the revivals of the Great Awakening stressed God’s sovereignty and minimized human free will. The Revolutionary War put an end to the revivals of the Great Awakening. The Rise of Second-Wave Revivalism Within less than two decades after the Revolution, revivals of a different sort began to appear. Historians refer to these revivals as second-wave revivalism, or the Second Great Awakening. Unlike the Great Awakening, nineteenth-century revivals stressed the role of human free will. While the Great Awakening occurred mainly in Puritan circles, second-wave revivals started with Methodists, who first arrived on the American scene in 1766. They made frequent use of open-air meetings, and stressed the need for people to choose to follow Jesus Christ. By 1830, Methodists had grown to more than half a million in number. Baptists used the same revivalist methods. They increased tenfold during the three decades after the Revolution. Evangelistic tent meetings were commonplace in the first half of the nineteenth century. Many churches adapted the format of revivals for their regular worship services, abandoning the liturgical format that Christians had followed for centuries. Preaching in these new worship services packed the same evangelistic fire as the revivals themselves. The singing before the sermon prepared people’s hearts for what the pastor would say. Eventually, this became the standard worship format for many Protestant churches in North America, continuing well into the twentieth century. Nineteenth-century evangelicalism was a product of its age. It drew from, and contributed to the nation’s growing sense of individual freedom and democratic fervor. Its theologians produced writings that harmonized with the philosophy and science of the day. Revivals filled existing churches with new believers. Thousands of new churches were established. Voluntary societies and socialreform movements worked to create a “Christian America.” Evangelicals established city missions to provide food, shelter, and clothing for the poor. They launched efforts to visit the sick and imprisoned. They comforted the dying and supported unwed mothers. They worked to improve working conditions for industrial laborers. They provided humane treatment for the mentally ill and enacted prison reform. Many advocated for the abolition of slavery, which accentuated the tensions between the North and South, and contributed to the onset of the Civil War in 1861.

Evangelical Christianity in America |

The Rise of Fundamentalists and Modernists After the Civil War, American evangelicalism entered a new chapter. Seventy years earlier it had come to its own in the newly ordered nation. Buoyed by the optimism of democratic freedom and the enthusiasm of second-wave revivalism, it witnessed unprecedented growth. Along with most other Americans before the war, evangelicals believed the future would only get brighter. The predominant theology of future events was “postmillennialism,” which held that Christ would eventually come at the end of an extended period of unbroken progress. Almost all evangelicals believed they were living in that golden era— until the Civil War. Casualties of the war extended well beyond the 60,000 that died. The nation reeled under the pain of its own making. Hopes of a glorious future collided on the hard reality of suffering and uncertainty. Evangelicals had to reorient themselves in a world that had betrayed their beliefs. After the Civil War, evangelicals split into two opposing groups: fundamentalists and modernists. Several factors contributed to this split. One was the teaching of English clergyman, John Nelson Darby. Darby divided the past, present, and future into different stages or “dispensations.” In each of these dispensations, the rules and regulations unique to that era guided God’s relationship with human beings. The present dispensation, according to Darby and his followers, would end only after a period of suffering and depravity. Circumstances would get worse rather than better before Christ’s return. Before the Civil War, most Protestants believed they could bring about Jesus’s return by making the world a better place. After the war, they had little reason to hold onto this hope. Darby’s teaching, which we call dispensationalism, provided some with the help they needed to make sense of the war and its aftermath. Ironically, dispensationalism attracted few followers in its country of origin. However, circumstances in postwar America were different from those in England. It took only two decades after the war for dispensationalism to become the preferred teaching of “end times” for American fundamentalists. Modernist Christians, on the other hand, took sharp exception to dispensationalism. Another factor that led to the division of American Christianity after the war was the teaching of evolution. English naturalist, Charles Darwin, introduced it. Darwin’s teaching offered an alternative to the bleak outlook of the dispensationalists. In contrast to fundamentalists, Christian modernists were unwilling to resign themselves to a future that would only get worse. For them, evolution offered the familiar hope of a brighter future, while accounting for that hope in scientific rather than theological terms. A third factor that contributed to the split of American Christianity was German rationalism. Throughout the nineteenth century, a steady stream of pastors and teachers poured from Germany into North America. Many were Germanborn immigrants. Others were Americans who had received advanced theological education in Germany’s research universities. In either case, they brought teachings that had circulated in Europe for nearly a century, but were largely unknown to North America. German rationalists had a lot in common with Darwin’s evolutionists. However, they were inspired more by philosophers than

155

156

|

Evangelical Christianity in America

scientists. Their main goal was to reinterpret Christian Scripture in the light of modern rationality. They denied the Bible’s accounts of miracles. They also rejected the seven-day creation story in Genesis. The teachings of these rationalists attracted many of the same American Protestants that preferred evolution. In essence, it gave credence to Darwin’s theory. It also gave modernists a reasonable alternative to what they now considered a misleading view of Scripture, which before the war had led them to believe (wrongly) that their good deeds would bring about Christ’s return. American Protestantism remained divided between fundamentalists and modernists throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The Rise of Pentecostalism While tensions were mounting in the early 1900s between fundamentalists and modernists, another Christian movement was being born: Pentecostalism. During this time, a series of separate revivals broke out in places as diverse as Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, California, and Tennessee. One of the most remarkable of these revivals was the Azuza Street Revival in Los Angeles. William Seymour, an African American pastor, led Revivalistic meetings there from 1906 to 1909. He rejected existing racial barriers in favor of “unity in Christ.” He also believed that women were entitled to serve in any level of church leadership to which the Holy Spirit called them. The most distinctive characteristic of this movement is the experience of “speaking in tongues” (i.e., speaking in a foreign or heavenly language that one had not learned beforehand). Seymour and other Pentecostal leaders believed that speaking in tongues was the outward evidence that one had received the Holy Spirit. The Rise of “New Evangelicalism” By the mid-1950s, a growing number of fundamentalists began to talk about the need for a new evangelicalism. While many eventually made the transition from fundamentalism to new evangelicalism, it did not occur overnight. It was, in many ways, a gradual and painful process. Evangelist Billy Graham was one of the strongest proponents of moderate evangelicalism. Graham was convinced that his ministry would have the greatest impact if he distanced himself from the sectarianism and anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalists. He sought to embrace a conservative theological position while adopting a liberal approach to social problems. He also favored a view of biblical inspiration that harmonized more readily with science. Today moderate evangelicals outnumber fundamentalists by a considerable margin. The Rise of the Evangelical Left During the 1980s and 90s, there emerged another evangelical beginning. As more and more fundamentalist and moderate evangelicals openly committed themselves to social and political conservatism, there occurred

Evangelical Christianity in America |

a countermovement of sorts. Many of these Christians were convinced that American evangelicalism was leaning so far to the ideological “right” that it was failing to address the more fundamental concerns to which Jesus directed the church. This countermovement is often referred to as the evangelical left. Members of this movement are theologically evangelical. They embrace the doctrines of the Incarnation, the atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They also consider the Bible to be the primary authority of religious truth. However, they are unique in that most of them embrace liberal politics. They are inclined to be pacifists and are often opposed to capital punishment. The Rise of the Emerging Church Movement By the end of the twentieth century, an influential minority of evangelical Christians began to believe that the world had entered a new epoch—namely, the postmodern age. This new era, they said, brought with it a vastly different set of social norms and philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of truth. The postmodern age, or emerging culture as it is sometimes called, requires Christians to rethink how best to frame and express their beliefs, their worship of God, and their relationship to the wider world. Members of the emerging church movement generally agree that the world has entered a new epoch of its history. However, they are more politically and theologically diverse than evangelical moderates or the evangelical left. They prefer conversations to evangelism, relationships over institutional church structures, and authenticity over formality. DIVERSITY OF PRESENTDAY EVANGELICALISM This brief historical overview shows that present-day American evangelicalism is the product of at least seven distinct “beginnings.” Its first point of origin derives from seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Puritanism. Flagship schools like the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, continue to preserve and promote evangelicalism’s Reformed tradition. Its second beginning came with second-wave revivalism in the early nineteenth century. The influence of this phase persists in a variety of forms. It is embodied in the widely accepted belief that people are free to choose whether they want to become Christians. It appears in the nonliturgical worship services carried on by the majority of Protestants in North America. It continues in the revivalist ministries of people like Billy Graham and Luis Palau. It is also evident in the social consciousness of moderate evangelicals, the evangelical left, and the emerging church movement. The rise of fundamentalism in the decades after the Civil War, was evangelicalism’s third beginning. Today, even though fundamentalist evangelicals are in the minority, they are still a potent force within American culture. The influences of Pentecostalism, evangelicalism’s fourth beginning, are evident in every quarter of Christianity, including the Roman Catholic and

157

158

|

Evangelical Christianity in America

Orthodox Churches. It is the fastest growing branch of Christianity in developing nations. Many analysts believe that by the year 2020, Pentecostalism will overtake the Roman Catholic Church as the largest Christian denomination in Latin America. Evangelicalism’s fifth beginning came with the rise of moderate evangelicalism in the 1950s. Some of the better-known moderates include Billy Graham, Carl Henry, Millard Erickson, and Rick Warren. Evangelicalism’s sixth beginning came with the rise of the evangelical left. Not since the nineteenth century has the social consciousness of American evangelicalism been more alive than in the present-day evangelical left. Some of the nation’s most influential Christians are members of this branch of evangelicalism. Former president Jimmy Carter has led the way in a variety of humanitarian efforts. Ron Sider, founded Evangelicals for Social Action to explore biblically based solutions to social and economic issues. Jim Wallis is founder of the Washington, D.C.–based evangelical community Sojourners as well as founder and editor Sojourners Magazine. He has authored several books, and hundreds of articles calling for social change, that is inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Other well-known evangelicals of this stripe include Tony Campolo, Philip Yancey, Jesse Jackson, and Katherine Kroeger. The emerging church movement, evangelicalism’s seventh and most recent beginning, is best represented in the writings of Brian McLaren, the movement’s most influential leader. Inspired by the humanitarianism of the evangelical left, McLaren is seeking to offer a reconstruction of Christian life and thought amid the deconstructionist attitudes of many who are associated with the movement. On one occasion, McLaren addressed an audience of emerging-church leaders that had gleefully rejected the behavioral constraints of “traditional Christianity.” He said, “Our world doesn’t need Christians who drink more, smoke more, or swear more. It needs Christians who live like Jesus lives and who care for the things that Jesus cares about” (from notes taken at “Revolution,” an Off the Map conference, Seattle, Washingtin, November 4, 2006). MISPERCEPTIONS OF EVANGELICALISM Despite the diversity of American evangelicalism, many in the United States are under the impression that evangelical refers only to the religious right. They think that all evangelicals are opposed to abortion, gay rights, and the ordination of women. The majority of evangelicals, however, are either moderate evangelicals, members of the evangelical left, or part of the emerging church movement. These Christians typically do not locate the center of their spirituality around such issues. Nor do they wish to be stereotyped as social or political conservatives. They reject the harsh rhetoric of fundamentalist evangelicals. They believe that the greatest evils to overcome include the AIDS crisis, and world hunger. Nevertheless, fundamentalist evangelicals are often more outspoken than other evangelicals. Some of the best-known evangelical organizations are fortresses of the religious right. The Traditional Values Coalition is one example. It claims to be the largest Christian grassroots church lobby in America, representing 43,000

Evangelical Christianity in America |

churches nationwide. It says its plan is “to take back the courts from the ACLU and the anti-God Left” (Traditional Values Coalition 2007). This organization encourages supporters to write to their civil leaders. It opposes issues like stemcell research, abortion, and gay marriage. It also promotes political candidates that are socially conservative. Another fundamentalist organization is Focus on the Family. Millions of Americans listen to its daily radio broadcasts. The organization’s nonprofit status keeps it from supporting partisan politics, but its representatives are free to speak off the record. Not only does it offer advice on how to rear children, it also recommends which candidates to vote for, and when to lobby for specific social issues. The organization, on several occasions, has collaborated with key churches to run voter-registration campaigns, distribute voter guides, and encourage people to get out and cast their votes. The National Association of Evangelicals is one of the most influential representatives of American evangelicalism. An analysis of its activities between 2001 and 2006 shows that it was focused as much on politics as religion. Analysts credit the NAE with rallying conservative Christians behind President George W. Bush’s 2000 election and 2004 reelection. Former NAE president, Ted Haggard, conducted weekly conference calls with White House officials and evangelical leaders. He started these conferences in 2001, and continued them until scandal forced his resignation in November 2006. With 30 million members, the NAE has the reputation of being the standard-bearer of evangelical beliefs and values. These groups have played a major role in leading Americans to think that most evangelicals belong to the religious right. CONCLUSION Popular misperceptions aside, American evangelicalism is a rich tapestry of Christian religious traditions that strengthens America’s social fabric and enhances the existence of countless individuals. Fundamentalist evangelicals remind us that truth matters, and should not be taken lightly. Modernist evangelicals remind us that all truth is God’s truth. The evangelical left reminds us to live out Christian truth by loving our neighbors as ourselves. Emerging-church evangelicals remind us that even if truth does not change, our expressions and experiences of it do. See also Religious Conversion; Separation of Church and State. Further Reading: Campolo, Tony, Letters to a Young Evangelical: The Art of Mentoring. New York: BasicBooks, 2006; Marsden, George. Evangelicalism and Modern America. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1984; McGrath, Alister. Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995; Noll, Mark A. The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003; Noll, Mark A., David Bebbington, and George A. Rawlyk. Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, The British Isles, and Beyond, 1700–1990. Religion in America Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Sweet, Leonard I. The Evangelical Tradition in America. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997; Traditional Values Coalition.

159

160

|

Evangelical Men’s Movements “About TVC.” Available at: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/about.php (accessed October 12, 2007); Webber, Robert. The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2002.

Charles Conniry, Jr. EVANGELICAL MEN’S MOVEMENTS In 1991 the Berlin Wall fell, and the cold war was officially over. Many things changed with that event, but it is perhaps not just a coincidence that at the same moment the men’s movement came into being. The election of Bill Clinton in 1992, a man who would make famous the phrase “I feel your pain” and whose approach commentators label as “feminized,” added to the confusion rather than eliminated it. The strong silent John Wayne man that was the model of manhood throughout so much of the cold war evaporated, set upon by changing norms for women, sex, and economics. It is not surprising then, that in this time of uncertainty the question of what it meant to be a “man” became a hot topic. Robert Bly and the secular men’s movement prodded men to dig deep, to understand the hurt their fathers had inflicted upon them, and to reconnect with their feelings emerging as new men (Bly 2004). Evangelicals were not left behind in this movement, but the traditionalist foundations ran deep. The Promise Keepers emerged as the alternative to the men’s movement, but it was plagued by conflict itself. It strained between the traditionalist model that had been the staple of evangelical/fundamentalist gender relations, and the call of new modes of gender relations from both the secular men’s movement and the women’s movements. The leaders and visionaries associated with the Promise Keepers actually had conflicting visions of manhood that participants sought to synthesize. In the end, the fall of the Promise Keepers in both attendance and finances may ultimately have been the result of these conflicting messages as the struggle to be a “Christian man” remains ongoing. MEN’S MOVEMENTS For most of the New Testament it is the category of woman that is a problem. Paul in 1 Corinthians in particularly seems to have an issue with women stepping outside of their cultural roles and taking on the positions of teacher and prophets. The author of Revelation, John of Patmos, rails against the “false teacher” Jezebel, and the pastoral epistles seem quick to want to put the genie back in the bottle, and women back in their subservient place. This continued in the early Christian period. Studies of the early church fathers have shown that women, particularly those outside the control of the traditional patriarchal family structure—widows and virgins—took on roles that made those church fathers extremely uncomfortable. Gnostic literature seems to indicate in certain branches of Christianity, women (particularly Mary Magdalene) who were seen as leaders of the Christian movement. In the New Testament period, then, the problem of gender was continually a problem about womanhood—what they could and could not do and be. Being a man, on the other hand, was not nearly

Evangelical Men’s Movements

as problematic for the early church. Paul talks about men’s submission to God, their responsibilities to their wives, but even here the problem really seems to be the role of women, not the role of men. In the late twentieth century, however, the category of man suddenly became problematized. In light of the feminist movement, women no longer were content to have as partners, men who assumed a dominant relational position. The psychological revolution beginning at the end of nineteenth century, and through the twentieth century, found that being a man was not as easy as was previously thought. Men’s needs and desires were examined and clinically categorized, and what had been seen as basic urges, suddenly was seen as the result of highly complicated processes that involved one’s mother and father, culture and social expectations. Even the category of sex was suddenly up in the air, as the Gay Liberation movement problematized the issue of men’s sexuality, and called into question the normativity of heterosexuality. By the later part of the twentieth century, being a man had become confusing; expectations were no longer clear. The “Father Knows Best” model of the 1950s had fallen by the wayside, but in its place no other model had been established. Rather than a new consensus emerging, the question of masculinity became the ancillary byproduct of other movements with other central concerns. The problem of masculinity was particularly prevalent in the evangelical communities. While the conservative Christian communities held stubbornly to the more patriarchal models of Victorian times, moderate evangelical men were clearly unsatisfied by the dominant father/dictator model of the past, and the ambiguity of the present. Into the vacuum stepped the men’s movements. The first steps in the burgeoning American Men’s Movement came from outside the Christian church with the publication of Robert Bly’s Iron John (2004) and Sam Keen’s Fire in the Belly (1992). A series of “men’s books” followed, men’s studies programs were initiated, and the men’s movement found its niche. IRON JOHN Robert Bly’s Iron John (2004) uses the Grimm’s fairytale, “Iron John.” The story of Iron John is one where a boy frees a wild-man and then goes off with him. He is eventually sent back to civilization where he rises from worker in the castle to a heroic knight who eventually marries the king’s daughter. Bly tries to explicate the crisis of the modern man through a reading of this story for modern life. Bly takes each element from the story and expands them with references to myths from other cultures, poetry, and the insights of psychology. The book is written as a meditation on manhood that sees the problem of today’s man as a loss of significant rites of passage that signal arrival as an adult male. Men no longer have a moment when they break from the mother and enter the world of men. Instead, the hard work of becoming a man is ignored, and the easier path is trod, which ultimately fails to clearly differentiate manhood from boyhood. The story of Iron John exemplifies the way men are hurt by the father through abuse or neglect. Bly advocates the route to becoming a man through spending a season with the inner wild man (Bly 2004).

| 161

162

|

Evangelical Men’s Movements

Bly is careful to state repeatedly that he is not calling for a return of patriarchalism. This is particularly true when he begins his discussion of the “Warrior,” an area that seems rife with danger. A history of the rape and abuse of women that accompanied the act of war certainly cannot be far from the surface in any such discussion. But Bly tries to explain that his notion of the warrior is not to redeem some testosterone soaked pillager from the past, but rather to endorse a notion of men who are committed “to self-sacrifice and service to the king, to intellectual combat, to clean fighting in marriage” (Bly 2004, 169). Older men have failed younger men by not mentoring them into the ways of the warrior. Fathers have wounded their sons instead, and mothers cannot help them. The story of Iron John functions as an allegory for the process of becoming a man, of reclaiming the notion of being “a man” and breaking free from the wounds of the father and the world of the mother. The movement that arose from Bly’s book, and others like it, became a media phenomenon. Men’s gatherings became quite popular. Men would gather on weekends in forested camps where they would engage in ancient male rituals like sweatlodges or drumming. They would dance and howl and grasp at the “wildman” within. But also they would talk about their feelings, their confusions about what it means to be a man, and most importantly they would talk about their fathers. Dealing with the complex of emotions surrounding the father seemed to be at the heart of the emotional payoff of these gatherings. Men shared stories of hurts, abuses, and various experiences of neglect suffered at the hands of their father. Bly’s notion of the father creating the wound that the son must forever carry, was actualized and shared at these gatherings. THE EVANGELICAL MEN’S MOVEMENT HISTORY For the evangelical movement, men have always been a scarce commodity. In the nineteenth century, religion was seen as part of the domestic world dominated by women. Men were outside the church, more invested in harvesting crops than souls. But clearly, even in the throes of the separate spheres, men experienced a certain isolation from each other. With the increasing industrialization and urbanization of the work force at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, a new emphasis on gatherings of men emerged. It is in this period that we see the founding of the Boy Scouts of America, who conveyed manhood as a rugged self-reliance, wilderness savvy and patriotic obligation. At this same time, their fathers were founding new fraternal orders, lodges, men’s clubs and young men’s fraternities as well. It began a period of male association that coupled masculine privilege with business advancement. On the religious front, in the beginning of the twentieth century, there arose a new vision of the evangelical man called Muscular Christianity. Popularized by traveling evangelist Billy Sunday, himself a former professional baseball player, this new vision of Christianity was directed at men. It was a form of evangelicalism that dispensed with a weak and feminized Jesus,

Evangelical Men’s Movements

and instead envisioned the savior as a man’s man. Sunday proclaimed Jesus a scrapper and analogies with sports and body-building peppered the language of this movement. THE PROMISE KEEPERS The Evangelical Men’s Movement in many ways is the heir of this muscular Christianity. It has been dominated by the Promise Keepers organization. The Promise Keepers were founded by Bill McCartney, a football coach at the University of Colorado. On a drive to a Christian Athletes dinner with Dave Wardell, the two men envisioned a stadium full of men bonded together through revival and discipleship. Their goal was to fill the University of Colorado’s Folsom Field with 50,000 men. Starting with a core group of 72 men, the Promise Keepers fasted and prayed for this new movement. Their first gathering was far short of their goal, yet still impressive, as 4000 men showed up. A scant two years later, McCartney actually accomplished his goal and filled the stadium with men dedicated to the cause of Christian manhood. The Promise Keepers quickly grew as an organization. An examination of the Promise Keepers attendance statistics shows a steady increase from 1990. The Promise Keepers claim that their conferences had an attendance of over 4000 the first year, 22,000 the next year, 50,000 the year after that, and by 1994, Promise Keeper conferences claimed 278,000 attendees. Those numbers continued exponential increases until 1996, when the Promise Keepers calculated a combined conference attendance of 1.1 million men. In 1997, the Promise Keepers descended on Washington with their Stand in the Gap march; inspired by, if not in answer to Minister Farrakhan’s Million Man March in 1995. The Promise Keepers claimed a million men in attendance, and spent the day with speakers leading them in prayer, song, and speeches extolling the virtues of, and exhorting the men to, Christian manhood. The Stand in the Gap march, however, represented the zenith of the Promise Keeper movement. Their attendance numbers began a precipitous decline after that. 1996 had already presaged a decline in the movement. Attendance was down some 400,000+ from 1995. The Stand in the Gap March seemed to indicate renewed interest, but in 1998 attendance continued to decline, even though conferences were no longer charging admission. Attendance seemed to plateau between 100,000 and 120,000 in the early part of the twenty-first century, but by 2007, attendance had dropped to 50,000 according to the official Promise Keeper estimates. The fall in attendance likewise had significant impact on the Promise Keepers’ budget. The budget for the Promise Keeper organization had largely come from attendance fees at conferences. With the elimination of such fees in 1998 as part of the Break Down the Walls campaign, which sought to include men from less affluent socio-economic demographics, the organization entered a financial crisis. The organization laid off staff and threatened to become an all-volunteer effort. It was saved from this fate by an infusion of donations, but continues as a significantly downsized version of its former self.

| 163

164

|

Evangelical Men’s Movements

The ideology of the Promise Keepers has generated a great deal of controversy as well. The main tenets of the Promise Keepers are represented in the Seven Promises that its membership commits to following. They are: 1. A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer, and obedience to God’s Word in the power of the Holy Spirit. 2. A Promise Keeper is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises. 3. A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity. 4. A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values. 5. A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by actively giving his time and resources. 6. A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity. 7. A Promise Keeper is committed to influencing his world, being obedient to the Great Commandment (see Mark 12:30–31) and the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:19–20). These seven promises highlight a few important issues that are hallmarks of the Promise Keepers. The groups’ focus is on building relationships with other men, much like the more secular version of the men’s movement. These promises also take an usual step of specifically committing to breaking down racial barriers. And, interestingly, these promises highlight a commitment to sexual purity, and building strong marriages and families, seeming to indicate the founders feel this is an area of weakness in the Christian Church. Moreover, Promise Keepers are required to commit to their local church in terms of both time and money. The commitment to a local church ties in with a second aspect of the Promise Keeper approach, which was to sign on churches as well as individuals. The Promise Keepers’ organization attended to the clergy early on, often providing scholarships so that pastors could attend conferences, and the Promise Keepers created several conferences specifically for the clergy. As a result, churches often became the avenue by which the Promise Keepers were able to reach their audience. The Promise Keepers developed a special category of member called Ambassadors, specifically to liaison between the Promise Keeper movement and churches in their area. However, the Promise Keepers are not without their critics. It is the fourth promise to build “strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values,” that suggests to some critics that the Promise Keepers seek to reaffirm traditional patriarchal values in the end. George Lundskow’s study, “Are Promises Enough?” sought to explore this question. Without doubt, Lundskow concludes, the men in the Promise Keeper movement see the traditional nuclear family, with the mother at home, and the father at work, as the ideal (Lundskow

Evangelical Men’s Movements

2000). On the other hand, economic necessity often requires the woman to work outside the home and many see this as a viable choice. In particular, Lundskow notes “I did not encounter the ‘barefoot and pregnant’ attitude that some writers seemingly imply” (Lundskow 2000, 62). Though Lundskow does note that men in the Promise Keeper movement tend to see women as more emotional and intuitive, while men are seen as more material and logical. Such a world view then, implicitly sanctifies a more patriarchal vision. On the other hand, the patriarch is more sensitive because of the Promise Keeper message. Using the concept of “Servant-Leader,” Lundskow notes that these men feel free to cry, to view their wives as friends and partners, and are willing to admit when they are wrong and acknowledge when their wives are right. The wives that Lundskow interviews seem genuinely pleased with the effect the Promise Keepers has had on their mates, and the level to which their relationship with their husbands has improved (Lundskow 2000). While the Promise Keeper vision does not abandon the more traditionalist notions of gender roles popular in fundamentalist/evangelical circles, it seeks to emphasize more engagement and humility within the marriage relationship. However, if we turn to political issues related to gender, the vision becomes much narrower. Lundskow notes that abortion is clearly understood as murder, and no discussion of choice is really engaged, though one individual in the study acknowledged that in the case of rape, the issue is perhaps less black and white. On the issue of homosexuality, on the other hand, little ambiguity is apparent. While Lundskow notes that none of the men he interviewed thought it was appropriate to persecute gays or discriminate in employment, the overall opinion was that homosexuality was considered clearly as sin, and should be condemned as such. Though certainly the men Lundskow interviewed were willing to admit that everyone sins, and that judging should be left to God (Lundskow 2000). John Bartowski has done a more recent study of the literature of the Promise Keepers and the evangelical men’s movement in general (Bartowski 2004). It should be noted, that while certainly the Promise Keepers are the most visible representatives of the evangelical men’s movement, they do not speak with one voice. In reality, there has been an explosion of literature oriented towards being a godly man sold in Christian bookstores across the country. The majority of the authors have appeared at Promise Keeper conferences, and thus, while not officially promoting Promise Keeper doctrine, they bear the Promise Keeper imprimatur by being a part of these meetings. Bartowski’s survey identified four different models of “manhood” propounded by this literature: The Rational Patriarch, The Expressive Egalitarian, The Tender Warrior, and The Multicultural Man (Bartowski 2004). The Rational Patriarch is often the stereotype of the Promise Keepers that Lundskow is fighting against. This is a reaffirmation of traditional masculinity that focuses on a clear essentialist division between women and men, which, and in the end, validates the patriarchal social order. Here, as seen above, women are seen as intuitive but also as detail oriented. This makes them naturally more adept at caregiving for children. On the other hand, men are logical and aggressive, prone to taking initiative, and more focused on a long-range vision. This

| 165

166

|

Evangelical Men’s Movements

makes the man the natural leader of the household, and The Rational Patriarch model of masculinity is engaged in demanding that men not shrink from their responsibility as such. It may be lonely at the top, but men are clearly suited to be on top, and have a duty to take up their calling unfailingly. While certainly Lundskow’s study showed hints of the Rational Patriarch, it is the Expressive Egalitarian that seems more prominent in his interviews (Lundskow 2000). Here, the emphasis is less on essentialized differences than human qualities that all people share, and particularly the emotional work of being a human being. For this model, the emphasis is on being in touch with one’s feelings, and sharing those with both male friends and female partners. The result is a greater amount of relational egalitarianism, where husbands and wives are more partners than in the top down approach of the Rational Patriarch. The focus of decision-making among couples is mutually acceptable solutions and not the implementation of male prerogative. Though Bartowski notes that his Expressive Egalitarian author is often unable to completely escape the sexual essentialism that is found in the Rational Patriarch, and occasionally engages in contradiction as he attempts to employ both notions simultaneously (Bartowski 2004). The Tender Warrior is a model that has a greater debt to the secular men’s movement and Iron John than the others. Here we see what Bartowski calls the Poetics of Promise-Keeping. The hallmark of this model is less its rationalist discourse, and more its mythopoetic metaphors for what comprises manhood. The Tender Warrior is armed with defensive battle attire and offensive weapons. Symbolic imagery permeates the discussion, often obscuring the finer points of how this move to manhood is practically to be accomplished. In marriage, the Tender Warrior carves out a middle ground between the Rational Patriarch and the Expressive Egalitarian, which employs the servant-leader notion Lundskow picked up on before. But nevertheless, it is the Warrior who goes out to battle and defends home and hearth, and thus maintains the status of headship in the family. But the very nature of the poetic language employed resists categorization as overtly patriarchal, for this model is characterized by “balancing reason with emotion and strength with tenderness, these tender tacking movements highlight the semi-porous boundary between ‘the masculine’ and ‘the feminine’ ”(Bartowski 2004, 61). The Tender Warrior eschews neither in himself. The Multicultural Man is perhaps the most unexpected turn that the evangelical men’s movement, and specifically the Promise Keepers, have taken. The focus of the seventh promise above is grounded in the racial division that underlies our society. The Promise Keepers are quite straightforward, name racism as a “sin,” and one that requires redemption beyond merely divine forgiveness but including “racial reconciliation.” To be sure, this is not a return to the social gospel of the 1960s, but maintains the characteristic evangelical emphasis on the individual. Thus, it is racial reconciliation that is accomplished “one relationship at a time” (Bartowski 2004, 63). The Promise Keepers themselves tried to mediate this with the removal of conference fees that would seek to allow others from different racial and social backgrounds to join the gatherings with their Breaking Down the Gates campaign. In the end, this move, while

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

threatening the fiscal solvency of the Promise Keepers, failed to significantly change the make up of the attendees. Perhaps the failure to recognize and address larger institutional racial problems failed to draw the desired audience. It is interesting to revisit Lundskow’s study in light of the different visions elucidated by Bartowski. One hears in Lundskow’s interlocutors a combination, and sometimes a confusion of all four models. They seek to be both Tender Warriors and Rational Patriarchs, they seek to express their feelings to their wives, while at the same time reclaiming an activist role in the family that occasionally resembles Father Knows Best. Such a conglomeration of often conflicting models represents the practical outcome of the confusion that inhabits the Promise Keeper movement, as its members try to hold to both the past, and to somehow to find their way into the future. See also Apocalypticism and Nuclear War; Vegetarianism as Religious Witness. Further Reading: Anonymous. Promise Keepers. http://www.promisekeepers.org/; Bartkowski, John P. The Promise Keepers: Servants, Soldiers, and Godly Men. Rutgers University Press, February, 2004; Bly, Robert. Iron John: A Book About Men. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2004; Chrasta, Michael. “The Religious Roots of the Promise Keepers.” In The Promise Keepers: Essays in Masculinity and Christianity, ed. Dane Claussen. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc. Publishers, 2000: 20–28; Gallagher, Sally K., and Sabrina L. Wood. “Godly manhood going Wild?: transformations in conservative Protestant masculinity.” Sociology of Religion 66, no. 2 (Summer 2005): 135–60; Keen, Sam. Fire in the Belly: On Being a Man. New York: Bantam, 1992; Lundskow, George N. “Are Promises Enough? Promise Keepers Attitudes and Character in Intensive Interviews.” In Promise Keepers: Essays in Masculinity and Christianity, ed. Dane Claussen. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company Inc. Publishers, 2000: 56–75; Trip, Gabriel. “Call of the Wildmen.” New York Times Magazine, October 14, 1990; Williams, Rhys H. “Introduction: Promise Keepers: A Comment on Religion and Social Movements.” Sociology of Religion (March 22, 2000). http://find.galegroup.com/ itx/in fomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&pro dId=AONE&docId=A61908751&source=gale&srcprod=AONE&userGroupName =boon41269&version=1.0.

Randall Reed EVANGELICALS AND ENVIRONMENTALISM Evangelicals have typically been seen as the most conservative group when it comes to the environment. They have generally been portrayed as antiintellectual, and suspicious of all ecological movements. Certainly, some of this is borne out by the evidence, and some have suggested it stems from the dispensationalist perspective in evangelicalism that expects the imminent return of Jesus, and the quick-following destruction of the world. Such a position seemed to reach its height during the Reagan era. Today, however, the looming environmental crisis predicted by a large majority of the scientific community has had ramifications even in the evangelical world. Evangelicals have taken a new, more eco-friendly stance toward the environment, and have even been put on record as urging government and their membership

| 167

168

|

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

to do their part in slowing global warming and taking care of the earth. This new evangelical environmentalism is sometimes called creation care and is growing in the United States today. THE ROLE OF DISPENSATIONALISM IN EVANGELICALISM To understand the relationship of evangelicalism and environmentalism, one must first understand the history of evangelicalism. A product of the second great awakening, evangelicalism caught fire at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Starting on the East Coast and traveling west, evangelicalism started as a revival movement, that some have argued challenged a movement toward secularism. Baptists and Methodists were particularly subject to the winds of evangelical change, though evangelical movements occurred in a large number of other denominations as well. Evangelicalism was particularly fomented by a number of itinerant preachers, who traveled throughout the country spreading a new message. The crux of evangelicalism was, then as now, conversion. Evangelicals stressed a need for repentance mediated through a conversion experience. This was not simply an intellectual affirmation, but a psychological transformation that made the believer a new person. Evangelicalism thus offered the believer a transformative moment that wiped away the past and resulted in a new creation. It was predicated upon the notion that the world was sinful, the domain of Satan. Christ’s coming was a historical moment of divine intervention, which allowed the Christian an opportunity to vacate their sinful state and be re-created into a new person. This led then to a suspicion of the world both natural and human. The world was fallen. Sin had seeped into its very core. And it took nothing less than a divine initiative powerfully enacted in the life of the believer to change that. Given that background, it is perhaps not difficult to understand the appeal of dispensationalism. Founded by Charles Nelson Darby in the mid-nineteenth century in Scotland, dispensationalism offered an understanding of the end of the world. Dispensationalism held that the world could be divided up into a series of ages. The first five ages ended with the life of Christ. From there, two more ages occurred and then the great parenthesis, a period outside the dispensations, which would end with the final age when Christ would return and establish his kingdom. The old fallen world would then pass away, and be replaced by a new heaven, and a new earth. The final age would be inaugurated by seven years of tribulation when God’s wrath would be visited upon the earth raining devastation. The earth would be ravaged by war, pestilence, plague, ecological disaster, death, famine and tyranny. Ultimately, this would end when Jesus returned as triumphant conqueror, wiping out the armies of the world with the sword of his mouth and bringing with him the army of saints. What was particularly appealing about dispensationalism, is that regardless how horrible the events of those last years of tribulation seemed, the believer could rest easy in the confidence that they would be exempt from such terrors.

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

This is because dispensationalism offered the key doctrine of the secret rapture of the church. Based on 1 Thessalonians 4, the dispensationalists believed that before the tribulation began, Christ would return and take the church with him to heaven. This then would be the final act for the church that would inaugurate the tribulation and the return of Christ some seven years later. The doctrine of fallenness that evangelicalism espoused, and the vision of the end propagated by dispensationalism, which included ecological catastrophe, linked together to create an evangelical understanding of the world as disposable in principle. The world is doomed, it is destined for environmental disaster that is predicted in scripture and is part of the inscrutable will of God. The question really becomes when will all this happen? While Darby himself eschewed date setting, he was convinced the time was near. But in 1948, when Israel became a nation, dispensationalists suddenly recognized the divine countdown had started. Hal Lindsey, in his dispensationalist best seller The Late Great Planet Earth, made this connection very clear. Speaking of Matthew 24, which ends with the parable of the fig tree (a symbol for Israel) the Gospel Jesus declares, “Truly I say to you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things have come to pass.” Lindsey goes on to clarify, What generation? Obviously, in context, the generation that would see the signs—chief among them the rebirth of Israel. A generation in the Bible is something like forty years. If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place. Many scholars who have studied Bible prophecy all their lives believe that this is so. (Lindsey 1998, 43) While the exact date is still subject to dispute (1988 passed uneventfully from a cosmic perspective), there is no doubt that with the establishment of Israel, dispensationalists were convinced that the time was short. The climax of history was upon us. What are the ecological ramifications of dispensationalism? If the end of history is truly upon us, what concern should the dispensationalist have about such environmental issues such as global warming, the destruction of species, increasing pollution, and the devastation of the rain forests? For the logic of dispensationalism, these are but signs of the end times. The dispensationalist will nod knowingly at such reports, and contend that things are going to get a lot worse once the tribulation has begun. But if the world is increasingly falling into ecological crisis, this means the return of Jesus is at hand. The important thing, as history makes its way through the divine plan towards the tribulation, is to make sure that people are saved, not owls. With the rapture coming ever closer, and the fate of the world is set in prophetic stone, the only real difference to be made is to issue the call to salvation. It should not come as a surprise then, if dispensationalists like Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and John Hagee should reject global warming as the fanciful act of left wing organization determined to impose a one-world government. Dispensationalists understand the events of the world as all fitting into a divine

| 169

170

|

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

time frame headed towards Armageddon. As Jan Markell, director of Olive Tree Ministries wrote: The pains on the earth stem from the Fall in the Garden. God is not waiting for us to solve the problem of global warming. We are waiting for Him to solve the problem of the global curse with His return. In the meantime, let’s be the best stewards of the earth that we can be. Sure, many of us look for a “new heavens and a new earth” because this one WILL be destroyed and the elements will melt with “fervent heat” (2 Peter 3:10–12); thus, the job of a true evangelical should be evangelism, not putting time, effort, and money into an initiative [solving global warming] that is being funded in part by proabortion, pro–same-sex marriage, globalist foundations. The dispensationalist mindset focuses not on solving ecological problems, but on bringing people to salvation. If this is the last generation, be it 40 years, 70 years, or until the last person born in 1948 dies, then time is too short to focus on long-range environmental problems. Thus, the dispensationalist opts out of any discussion of solutions for ecological crises, instead focusing on the current redemption of the lost, and the ultimate return of Jesus Christ. ENVIRONMENTALISM IN THE REAGAN ERA Ronald Reagan’s election as president was arguably one of the most important moments in the environmental movements’ history. Reagan, whose record as governor of California was relatively pro-environment, made a quick about-face upon entering the White House. Reagan was quick to cut spending in federal environmental agencies, weaken environmental regulations and enforcement, and appointed two people who would become the focal point of the ecological community’s fury: James Watt and Anne Gorsuch. Under Ronald Reagan’s appointees a new direction was taken on environmentalism. During the 1970s, and particularly during the Carter administration, environmentalism had some successes. Carter’s energy policy stressed conservation, and his interior department added millions of square miles to the national park system. However, when Reagan appointed James Watt, all that changed. Watt refused to increase public lands until forced by congress. Instead, he presided over the greatest sale of public lands in the twentieth century. Watt was aggressive about finding new forms of energy without too much concern about environmental consequences. While keeping national parks off-limits, Watt sought to open up public lands to greater mineral and oil exploration and development. He argued that “being a good steward requires the use of resources as well as the preservation of resources.” It was that issue of use where Watt believed the United States had not been good stewards and sought to correct the overemphasis on preservation. Watt cut the budget of the interior department, and particularly de-emphasized research and investigations that were not commercially beneficial. He likewise sought to open up Alaska and the off-shore continental shelf for oil exploration and drilling. Watt was extremely parsimonious about adding

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

species to the endangered species list, and held the record for the fewest additions until the administration of George W. Bush. Ultimately, Watt was vilified by environmentalists, and eventually met defeat at the hands of the Republican Senate, which passed legislation overturning some of Watts’s provisions. Likewise, several of his decisions were challenged in court, and likewise, some were overturned. Eventually, Watt resigned after commenting about his staff, “I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent.” The role of religion, however, is never far away when discussing James Watt. Watt has often been cited as testifying that, “When the last tree is felled Christ will come back.” There is no record of such testimony. But such an apocryphal story has continued to have life, being repeated by such sources as the Washington Post and Bill Moyers, as a testimony to Watts’s conservative religious perspective, and how it may have colored his approach to land management. Watt certainly did evoke Christ’s return during testimony, but argued that regardless of the time of that return, one needed to engage in good stewardship of the earth. It is of course the debate over what constitutes stewardship that separated Watt from environmentalists. Nonetheless, the longevity of this quote testifies to the kind of connection between dispensationalism and its political ramification that first reared its head during the Reagan administration. CREATION ENVIRONMENTALISM Yet the actual comment by Watt, which stressed stewardship of the earth, is a precursor of a more self-consciously environmentalist movement among evangelical Christians. In 1989, the name of James Watt was raised again, only this was in a roundtable talk on the churches and environmentalism. At that conference, James M. Cubie related the story of Watt’s confirmation in which Paul Tsongas, a senator with a passion for environmentalism, struggled how to vote. In the end he commented that Watts was genuinely religious. Does a true man of God allow the rape of God’s earth and God’s creatures? Can a man of God look upon desecrated land and see God’s will? Can the destruction of animals and naturalness even be arguably part of God’s plan for us? I think not. Tsongas voted to confirm Watt. Yet the logic of Tsongas’s questions should not be missed. Tsongas here presumes that a religious perspective, even an evangelical one (Tsongas himself was Greek Orthodox), leads to an environmentalist concern. Tsongas is not alone in this perspective, since in the 1990s and into the first decade of the twenty-first century the connection between evangelicals and environmentalism is becoming more and more common. In 1995, Evangelicals for Social Action and the Evangelical Environmental Network (E.E.N.) produced the Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation. The Declaration focused on the need to care for God’s creation, and to take action in one’s daily life “to resist the allure of wastefulness and overconsumption by making personal lifestyle choices that express humility, forbearance, self restraint and frugality.” Interestingly, there is particular attention to poverty. The declaration states, “We recognize that poverty forces people to degrade creation in order to survive; therefore

| 171

172

|

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

we support the development of just, free economies which empower the poor and create abundance without diminishing creation’s bounty.” Attached to the declaration is a list of signatories, who include professors from many important evangelical colleges like Wheaton, Oral Roberts University, and Fuller Seminary, as well as several well-known evangelical ministries like World Vision, the InterVarsity Fellowship, and The Salvation Army. Yet also striking are the names that are missing from the list. There are no signatories from Biola College, Master’s College, Liberty University, or Bob Jones University. Clearly, the appeal of the declaration was to more centrist-leaning Evangelical groups and colleges. In 2002, the Evangelical Environmental Network came into the public eye with their What Would Jesus Drive (WWJD) educational campaign. The WWJD campaign sought to draw a connection between evangelicals and environmental responsibility in a way that had previously been the purview of more liberal religious organizations. The campaign generated a lot of attention. The EEN claims that over 1,400 print stories circulated, as well as television and radio stories covered on programs as diverse as NPR’s Talk of the Nation, to the Oliver North Show, from Good Morning America to 60 Minutes. The campaign illustrated a new greener evangelical constituency, one that embraced problems such as global warming and the health effects of pollution as real, and as the responsibility of Christians to solve. On the heels of this campaign in 2004, the Sandy Cove Covenant and Invitation was established by a group of evangelicals meeting in Sandy Cove, Maryland. The conference was sponsored by Christianity Today and The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). The document produced by the conferences consisted of a series of “covenants” (agreements by the participants) to make creation care an important part of the Evangelical discourse. The Sandy Cove Covenant mostly demanded that attention be paid to environmental topics, and that solid research about environmental issues should be uncovered and disseminated. The document ended with an “invitation” to engage on these issues, and specifically set forth the goal of producing a position document on climate change within a year. The signatories on this document still excluded some of the more well known evangelical names, but did include the leaders of the National Association of Evangelicals and Christianity Today, which by themselves increased the visibility of the work (NAE 2004b). The group was good to their word and six months later, in fall of 2004 the NAE circulated the document For the Health of The Nations: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility. This wide-ranging document dealt with a host of issues from poverty to abortion, human rights to religious freedom. It is only on page 11 of the 12-page document that the issue of environmentalism is addressed in the section We labor to protect God’s creation. A total of four paragraphs follow, that hardly constitute an ecological manifesto. Essentially, this part of the document can be summed up in the last sentence from the first paragraph, “Our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth rather than deplete and destroy it” (NAE 2004a). Still, the section does call for government action in two places. First it calls for government to “protect” the populace from the effects of pollution of air

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

and water. Here, intriguingly, there is reference to the complexity of natural systems and unexpected side effects, which may be an oblique reference to global warming. Second, in the most programmatic statement in the section it concludes, “We urge government to encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, and provide for the proper care of wildlife and their natural habitats” (NAE 2004a). It was at this point the fireworks began in the evangelical community. James Dobson, influential head of Focus on the Family, a conservative evangelical group, denounced the document. As did Chuck Colson founder of the Prison Fellowship Ministries, Robert Robertson, president of Oral Roberts University, and Donald E. Wildmon head of American Family Association. These individuals (and others as well) accused the NAE of attempting to inject itself into the global warming debate and calling the whole issue “not scientifically established.” They were joined by Senator James Inhofe, a vociferous global warming denier on Capitol Hill, who likewise pressured the NAE to abandon the document. In the end, regardless of the ever mounting scientific data establishing global warming, the NAE backed down and issued a statement: “We are not considering a position on global warming. We are not advocating for specific legislation or government mandates” (NAE, 2004b). The position paper on civic responsibility remains on the NAE website, but not in the Policy Resolutions section. The debate about the environment, and particularly global warming, is not over, however. George W. Bush, himself a famous skeptic of global warming, included a reference to global warming in his 2007 state of the union address. With the Democratic take over of congress in 2006, skepticism about the issue has taken a back seat, and both parties are now taking the issue seriously. The green evangelicals are now being courted by the Democrats, and may abandon the Republican party if it does not seriously address this issue. Additionally, particularly among young evangelicals, there is an increasing view that this is one of the most important moral issues of our time. We may see a political fracturing of this group in the near future as a result. At the very least, environmentalism has entered the evangelical mainstream. See also Apocalypticism and Nuclear War; Separation of Church and State. Further Reading: Aitken, Jonathan. “A Change in the Climate.” American Spectator 39, no. 4 (2006): 50–52; Brandt, Don. God’s Stewards: The Role of Christians in Creation Care. Federal Way, WA: World Vision, 2002; The Evangelical Climate Initiative. “The Evangelical Climate Initiative: A History.” 2006. Available at: http://www.npr.org/ documents/2006/feb/evangelical/history.pdf; Evangelical Environmental Network. “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation.” 2006. Available at: http://www. creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php; Evangelical Environmental Network. “Creation Care.” Evangelical Environmental Network, 1998. Available at: http://www. omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=5854; Lindsey, Hal. The Late, Great Planet Earth, 25th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zonderran, 1998; Markell, Jan. www.olive treeviews.org; National Association of Evangelicals. “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.” 2004a. Available at: http://www.nae.net/ images/civic_responsibility2.pdf (accessed January 30, 2008); National Association

| 173

174

|

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools of Evangelicals. “Sandy Cove Covenant and Invitation.” 2004b. Available at: http:// www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=editor.page&pageID=121&IDCategory=9 (accessed January 30, 2008); “Religious Right Scuttles Group’s Plan To Address Global Warming.” Church and State 59, no. 3 (2006): 18–19.; Shute, Nancy. “The Greening of James Watt.” National Review 35, no. 15 (1983): 924–957; Watt, James. “Ours is the Earth.” Saturday Evening Post 254, no. 1 (1982): 74–104; “What Watt Wrought.” New Republic, December 26, 1983; Woodstock Theological Center. “The Environmental Crisis: A Challenge to the Churches.” Woodstock Report 21, 1990.

Randall Reed EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATIONISM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Evolution has been a hot-button issue since it came on the intellectual scene toward the end of the nineteenth century. Christians have rebelled against the mechanistic notions of evolution, and developed several alternatives that they have claimed also have scientific merit. These theories, called Creationism, have different forms: Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism and, more recently, Intelligent Design. When courts ruled that teaching evolution in public schools could not be outlawed by the states without violating the separation of church and state, creationists moved to have their perspective included in science curriculums. The courts, however, have rejected such demands, and consistently ruled that creationism, whether Young Earth, Old Earth, or Intelligent Design, is ultimately religion not science, and has no place in the classroom. Undeterred, creationists continue their campaign to include their critique of evolution into the public schools. INTRODUCTION The scene is famous. Three-time presidential candidate and fundamentalist, Matthew Harrison Brady (Williams Jennings Bryant) is seated in the witness chair being cross-examined by Henry Drummond (Clarence Darrow). Questioned about the discrepancy between a 6,000-year-old earth and rock dated millions of years old, Bryant proclaims “I care more about the Rock of Ages than the age of rocks!” The play (and the movies) Inherit the Wind made this moment classic. Yet, while those productions argued that enmity between science and religion could bear only despair and death, the battle continues undeterred. And the battleground has not moved since John Thomas Scopes was arrested for teaching Evolution in a Tennessee classroom. The question of the validity of Evolution, and the degree to which alternative approaches should be taught in science classes, is still as important at the beginning of this century as it was at the beginning of the last. HISTORY It can be argued that the beginning of the evolution versus creation debate is found in the arguments for the existence of God, specifically the argument from design. The argument from design stipulates that the very existence of the world

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools | 175

requires an intelligence. Often called the Watchmaker Argument, it reasons that when I see a watch I can infer that there is a watchmaker. By the same token, when I see the world (an infinitely more complex and glorious creation) I must likewise infer a world maker. This argument, first propounded by Plato and Aristotle, and then given Christian form by Thomas Aquinas, has been one of the staples of the arguments for the existence of God for centuries. There were challenges to this argument. The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that, at best, the argument from design proposed that there was an architect to the world, but it fell far short of being able to prove that that architect was God. The Enlightenment philosopher David Hume went farther arguing several things. First, Hume attacks the basic assumption of the argument: the validity of the analogy. The argument from design postulates since in the human world we see artifacts of human design and recognize there is a designer, then observing the natural world we must also infer a designer. Yet the analogy fails, claims Hume, because artifacts from the human world and the natural world are not at all the same. We know watches have watch makers because we have seen people make watches. Yet we have never seen anyone make a world, so how do we know worlds require world makers? Second, Hume argues that the conclusion that a singular all powerful designer is called for, is likewise unmerited. There is no reason why there must be only one designer; certainly there could be an entire committee of designers much as there are many builders to construct a house. And what can we possibly say about such a designer? There is nothing, claims Hume, that would lead to any of the general propositions about God, namely that God is good, all-knowing, all-powerful, loves humanity or wishes our salvation. All we know is that there is a being(s) that can make a world. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not a philosophical challenge to the argument from design, but it challenges it, likewise, at its most presuppositional level; the question of whether there is, in fact, a design that requires a designer. The postulate that is the starting point for all arguments of the design, is that the world works together in the same way as all the parts of a watch work perfectly together. Yet what Darwin’s work showed, was that the world is not a unified whole, rather it is a mass of disunity: a vast number of independent systems that do not have some overarching design, but rather are related only locally, and may arise, develop, and decline depending on their reactions and adaptations to the local ecosystem (Darwin 2003). Evolution came on the scene in the nineteenth century through the work of Charles Darwin and his tome The Origin of Species (Darwin 2003). Evolutionary theory first suggested that changes in species occurred because of natural selection. Organisms better adapted towards survival tended to live to procreate, and thus passed along the trait that enhanced their survivability. Organisms less able to survive were often unable to pass along their traits. Since Darwin, science has learned a lot more about how this process works. The discovery of genes created a revolution in evolutionary science. Today, when scientists discuss evolution, they increasingly are talking about genetic changes. Evolutionary theory sees several different ways of change being introduced in a species. Along with natural selection, there is mutation, migration, and

176

|

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools

genetic drift. Mutation is the process where random genetic mutations occur and are passed along to offspring. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral or negative. Migration has to do with organisms of one group migrating and reproducing with another group. Thus, animals from one area (say dogs) that have a particular genetic trait may migrate to another area and reproduce with dogs of another area, thus introducing that genetic trait into that group. Genetic drift refers to the random chance that more members of a group might survive with one particular genetic trait than others (often because of random calamities), and thus their offspring are more numerous, and perpetuate their genetic trait more prevalently among the species as a whole. Often one hears the criticism of evolution that highly complex organisms like human beings cannot have come about “by random chance.” This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Random chance plays a part in evolution; certainly, mutations and genetic drift all come about randomly. But natural selection is not random. It is the mechanism in which organisms that are better suited to their environment live to reproduce, and thereby propagate their genetic make up. This is sometimes referred to as survival of the fittest. But we must be careful even here. What constitutes fitness is not always strength or speed, but may be something much more mundane like color. A pink slug may be twice as fast as a regular brown slug, but the slower brown slug has a much better chance of survival sliding along the dirt than its speedy but more colorful counterpart, since the pink slug is more likely to attract the attention of a passing predator. Thus, changes may be random, but those that are propagated are not random; they aid in the survival of the species. CREATIONISM Creationists can be divided into two distinct camps: Young Earth Creationists (YECs) and Old Earth Creationists (OECs). Young Earth Creationists hold that the Bible should be taken literally, and that Genesis gives a scientifically accurate representation of the creation process. Old Earth Creationists suggest that Genesis is accurate, but not literal, and therefore the age of the earth is closer to the current scientific estimate of roughly four billion years. Thus, for Young Earth Creationists, the earth is roughly six thousand years old. Bishop James Ussher, a sixteenth-century Irish Cleric, put the date of creation on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C.E. While not all YECs accept this exact dating, they all put the age of the Earth as somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years. They understand the Genesis story as an accurate account of God’s actions that created the earth. Creation took place in seven 24-hour days. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and God created Adam first, and then Eve from a part of him. One might wonder, however, how YEC deals with the fossils that seem to indicate the earth’s age as millions of years older. The answer, unsurprisingly, is found in the Bible. It is the notion of Catastrophism that is used by YEC. Catastrophism suggests that Noah’s flood created a global phenomenon that created the fossil column. Additionally, YEC produces a variety of reasons from

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools | 177

the current size of the sun, to the rate of geomagnetic decay that points to the YEC position. For instance, YEC points out that the sun is currently shrinking at roughly 5 feet per hour. If the earth were billions of years old, then life could not have developed on earth. Evolutionists have responded that the suppositions of the assertion are: (1) based on false data (there are no replicated studies that show the sun is shrinking); and (2) false assumptions (a shrinking sun today need not necessarily indicate a shrinking sun in the past). Evolutionists contend all YEC contentions suffer from one or both of these problems. Old Earth Creationism, on the other hand, suggests that to limit the seven days of creation to 24 hours each is an unnecessarily literal reading of the text. Particularly the three days before God creates the sun (God creates the sun and the moon on the fourth day), should not be understood as literal days (though some OEC advocates suggest that all the “days” in Genesis chapter 1 should not be considered literal). Old Earth Creationists then suggest that a “day” in Genesis is a compressed view of a very long period of time that may extend for hundreds of millions, or even billions of years. Old Earth Creationism is not necessarily antithetical to evolution. Some of its practitioners opt for theistic evolution where evolution is the mechanism whereby God enacts creation. More often, however, OEC uses the term progressive creation. The notion here is that the fossil record is not the result of evolutionary processes, but rather of a process of creation that continued through the first 4 billion years of the earth or so. God created the universe starting with the big bang, and then created the Earth and then its plants and animals. Through the millions of years it is God’s creation that is seen. The fossil column is the record of God’s action, as God is actively creating new plants and animals and eventually creates humans. At that point, once humanity has been created and invested with souls, God rests and the creation period ends. Old Earth Creationists thus, are very interested in aligning the Bible with Science. They do not, like YEC, dispute the findings of science; they only suggest the processes have been misidentified. In fact, OEC disputes the claims of YEC by saying YEC’s conclusions are based on selective data, or a misunderstanding of the facts. Nor does OEC necessarily dispute microevolution (changes within a species to adapt to their environment); they accept that we see examples of natural selection to this day. It is rather the issue of macroevolution, the emergence of different species, where they see not natural processes, but supernatural action. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement, which now seems to dominate most of the headlines, is the latest version of the Creationist movement. Intelligent Design often holds to an Old Earth dating (though officially it takes no position on the age of the earth), and like OEC it is ultimately a critical appraisal of evolution, motivated by what it sees as the flaws in Darwinism. The most important concept for Intelligent Design is “irreducible complexity” and was first formulated by Michael Behe (Behe 2006). The notion here is that there are phenomena in nature that are so complex that it is impossible to suppose that they evolved in stages. Like a mousetrap that consists of several components. If one part of a mousetrap is absent in its inner workings, then the trap does not function. The example that Intelligent Design proponents like

178

|

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools

Michael Behe use is the flagellum bacteria. This is a bacterium that has a kind of propeller on its back that gives it propulsion. The mechanism is made up of several components, all of which are necessary for the system to work. Behe argues that evolution proposes that each component would evolve separately, but since they are all simultaneously required to make the mechanism work, clearly this cannot be the case (Behe 2006). Other examples, like blood clotting, where a series of processes happen sequentially in order to create the effect, likewise seem to negate the notion of evolution being the mechanism that creates such a process. Instead, what is required for such complicated processes, is the existence of something beyond natural selection—an intelligent designer, who in fact intentionally created such things. While the theory itself does not postulate the identity of the designer, most proponents of Intelligent Design ascribe that identity to the God of the Bible. Intelligent Design has been criticized as being creationism in sheep’s clothing. Evolutionists have argued that ID proponents make an unmerited leap from complexity to design. Certainly, there are complex processes that have evolved over time, yet ID presupposes a strict sequential understanding of evolution. Thing A evolves, then thing B, then thing C. Yet, argue evolutionary scientists, evolution does not stop. Thing A may continue to evolve after B and C emerges, and thus a system may get progressively more complex over time. Additionally, things may also drop away during the course of evolution so that something that has been used in one way at one time in conjunction with another element may come to have a different use at a different time, and that previous conjunctive element may have disappeared altogether. Thus, to return to the mouse trap. A rudimentary mouse trap may be made using only one or two components, but as the process continues other pieces may be added, others subtracted, until the multi-part mouse trap that we are familiar with today emerges. EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS In the early part of the twentieth century, traditional Christians felt under attack. The results of the new discipline of Biblical Criticism developed in Germany and England, were calling into question basic assumptions many Christians had about who wrote the Bible and what it meant. The psychological work of the Freudian school suggested that belief in God may arise not from the realization of the divine, but from deep psychological needs. Many Christian churches were turning their attention not to traditional questions of salvation, but to issues of helping humanity through the new, and far less doctrinaire, social gospel. Social mores and gender roles were being challenged by young urbanites. It was a time of religious and cultural upheaval. A significant part of this, and one many conservative Christians latched on to, was the question of evolution and the work of Charles Darwin (Darwin 2006). Evolution was the step too far for many of these Christians. The notion that the fossil record contradicted the narrative of the Bible, and that humanity had not been created in the image of God, but had instead evolved from apes, was

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools | 179

the place where fundamentalist Christians felt the battle must be engaged. Several states rose up in rebellion against these “modernist” ideas, and banned the teaching of (human) evolution in public schools. Teachers who violated these laws were arrested and put on trial. The most famous of these trials is the Scopes Trial, which was popularized by the play, and subsequent movie(s) Inherit the Wind. John Thomas Scopes was arrested and tried for teaching evolution. The trial attracted national attention, involving three time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryant for the prosecution and the famous defense attorney Clarence Darrow. Darrow tried to make the trial about the scientific validity of evolution, but the judge ruled those arguments immaterial. The trial eventually led to the unusual circumstance of Darrow cross-examining Bryant on the stand. In the end, Scopes was convicted and fined $100. The case was appealed and overturned on a technicality. Still, the Tennessee Supreme court upheld the spirit of the law and the law was on the books until 1967. As important as the Scopes Trial seemed, it was of little legal significance. The first important legal case on evolution heard by the Supreme Court was Epperson v. Arkansas (Anonymous 1968) in which the court unanimously ruled that laws that outlawed evolution to protect religious opinions were unconstitutional. A state was not allowed to create a curriculum that excluded a scientific theory solely for the reason of defending a religious view. The Public School system must stay neutral in regards to religion. The outlawing of evolution violated that neutrality by advocating for, or defending religion. It was with this decision that the teaching of evolution became unequivocally legal in the United States. Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) significantly changed the playing field. Whereas before the decision, in some states, creationism was the default, and evolution seen as the secular interloper, with Epperson v. Arkansas evolution became the status quo for science classes. Creationism supporters now searched for a way to reverse this. The strategy was then to advocate for “creation science,” which was presented as an equal theory to evolution, and could thus be taught in science classes in addition to, or in lieu of evolution. Such was the case with a law passed in Louisiana called the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and EvolutionScience in Public School Instruction Act or more commonly the Creationism Act. Essentially, the Act stipulated that when evolution was taught, creationism had to be taught as well. A coalition of parents, educators, and theologians sued, and the case ultimately came before the Supreme Court. The court decided against the state of Louisiana, and struck down the law as unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguilar. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, argued that the Creationism Act was designed to do two things. Either it made sure that there was a creationist response to each evolutionary contention, or it made teaching origins too onerous, and thus made the teacher disinclined to teach either. Additionally, Brennan stated that the very act of teaching creationism violated the establishment clause (separation of church and state) because “the term ‘creation science,’ . . . embodies the religious belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind.” Creation-Science then was seen as religion, not science.

180

|

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools

Other cases have come before various state courts attempting to either verify the science of creationism, or to get evolution removed from the curriculum on the grounds that it constitutes the religion of Secular Humanism. In Wright v. Houston Independent School District (1978) the plaintiff argued the school was promoting the “religion of secularism” by teaching evolution. However, the F if th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the school district was not promoting evolution, and thereby secularism as a religious belief, and therefore did not violate the first amendment. On the other hand, in California, the Sacramento Superior Court ruled that discussions of evolution do not violate a student’s exercise of religion, even if their religion has a contrary opinion. And in 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, the court held that a “balanced treatment” statute was likewise unconstitutional. In 1999, the Kansas School Board tried a different approach. Rather than require an alternative to evolution be taught in addition or instead, the Board removed evolution from its science curriculum. The inclusion of evolution was then left to individual district school boards, but evolution was not tested on the state science tests, and thus, teachers had less motivation to teach it. The move resulted in Kansas being criticized across the country by science teachers and professionals. Eventually, several members of the school board who had voted for the change were defeated in the next election, and replaced with candidates who promised to restore evolution to the state science curriculum. Shortly after the election, evolution returned to the curriculum. More recently, however, Kitzmiller v. The Dover Board of Education put the constitutionality of the less overtly religious “Intelligent Design” on trial. The Dover Board of Education mandated that 9th grade science classes read a statement that pointed to “gaps” in evolution, and suggested alternatives such as Intelligent Design. A group of parents contacted the ACLU and sued the Board. The trial hinged on whether Intelligent Design was actually a scientific theory, or just creationism in disguise. The court ultimately ruled against the board saying, “the board’s ID policy violates the establishment clause. In making this determination we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded it is not, and moreover ID can not uncouple itself from its creationist and thus religious antecedents.” Intelligent Design, like Creation Science before it, had been ruled by the court as religion, not science, and thus had no place in the public school. Though Dover constituted a victory for the supporters of evolution in the schools, the battle is far from over. In Texas, the state Science Curriculum Director Chris Comer was forced to resign after forwarding a notice of an anticreationism book talk in Austin to a listserve of science teachers with the message “FYI.” Increasingly, legislatures and state curriculum committees are mandating the teaching of the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory without specifically proposing alternatives. Academic Freedom bills are also being considered by several state legislatures to “protect” teachers who teach scientific criticisms of evolution. Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled has suggested that individual science teachers who are critical of evolution have been fired or demoted. Critics of Stein, on the other hand, charge that these accusations are not borne

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools | 181

out by the facts, and that no teacher who asks legitimate scientific questions of evolution has been punished. But these critics distinguish this sort of open inquiry from teaching creationism, which the courts have ruled unconstitutional, and for which some teachers have been disciplined. Thus, the battle between creationists and evolutionists persists, and will endure for many years to come. Evolution continues to provoke the outrage of some individuals because it opens the question of the meaning of life. There are some who argue if humans are the product of natural process rather than divine act then there is no basis for morality or law or faith. But such a critique has now moved from the realm of scientific evidence and analysis into the area of culture. As such, evolution has become one of the primary battlefields of the culture wars, and with neither side contemplating surrender, it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Further Reading: Anonymous. Evolution Court Cases. Available at: http://www.tungate.com/ evolution_court_cases.htm; Anonymous. “TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/ Evolution Controversy.” Available at: http://www.talkorigins.org/; Anonymous. “Understanding Evolution.” Available at: http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home. php; Anonymous. Epperson v. Arkansas. FindLaw, 1968. Available at: http://www.case law.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=97; Apple, Michael W. “Evolution Versus Creationism in Education.” Educational Policy 22, no. 2 (March 2008): 327–335; Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 2006; Beil, Laura. “Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy.” The New York Times, June 4, 2008; Binder, Amy. “Gathering Intelligence on Intelligent Design: Where Did It Come From, Where Is It Going, and How Should Progressives Manage It?” American Journal of Education 113, no. 4 (2007): 549–576; Branch, Glenn. “Understanding Creationism after Kitzmiller.” Bioscience 57, no. 3 (March 2007): 278–284; Buckley, David. “Creationism, Darwinism and ID.” Institute of Biology, May 2008; Darwin, Charles. The Origin Of Species. New York: Signet Classics, 2003; De Young, Donald. Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth. Green Forest: Master Books, 2005; Fountain, John W. “Kansas Puts Evolution Back Into Public Schools.” New York Times, February 15, 2001; Henderson, James R. “Teaching Evolution To Creationists.” Sociological Viewpoints 23 (Fall 2007): 73–84; Humburg, Burt, and Ed Brayton. “The Dover Decision.” Skeptic 12, no. 2 (2006): 44–50; Moore, Greg. “Reasons To Believe Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1?” Reasons to Believe. Available at: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/ other_papers/greg_moore_does_old_earth_creationism_contradict_genesis_1.shtml; Moore, Randy, Murray Jensen, and Jay Hatch. “Twenty Questions: What Have the Courts Said about the Teaching of Evolution and Creationism in Public Schools?” Bioscience 53, no. 8 (2003): 766; Ross, Hugh. Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars. 1st ed. Colorado Springs: Navpress Publishing Group, 2006; Ruse, Michael. “Flawed Intelligence, Flawed Design.” In Virginia Quarterly Review, 82 (Spring 2006): 54–77; Shermer, Michael. Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. Reprint. Holt Paperbacks, 2007; Slack, Gordy. The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover. New York: JosseyBass, 2008; The Associated Press. “Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says.” The New York Times, November 30, 2007.

Randall Reed

This page intentionally left blank

F FAITH-BASED HEALTH CARE, RELIGIOUS MORALITY, AND INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES Faith-based health care organizations obtain their distinctive identities in light of their religious morality. Sponsorship connects religious traditions with their activities in the world, including health care. Sponsorship also ensures the distinctive character of these ministries by enabling institutional policies to reflect the religious morality of the tradition. Here we will introduce the nature of faith-based health care and the effects of religious morality on the policies of these institutions. Thus, the main question will be this: What are the major social issues in providing faith-based health care? To answer this question, this entry will also address the following: What is the relationship between religious traditions, health care ministry, and organizational identity? Healing continues to be a prominent feature of experience throughout the world’s religions (Sullivan and Sered 2005). Generally, the goals of health care align with the goals of religious life. As Sullivan and Sered point out, “healing” can mean a variety of things: returning to some state of ritual order, increasing the fullness of life, eliminating disorder and evil, redeeming someone from a state of condemnation, saving someone from guilt and sin, liberating a person or people from a certain existence, or extinguishing existence itself. Thus, providing health care can have a dual meaning: on the one hand, it reflects a physical or mental healing of the persons who receive it; and on the other hand, it reflects a deeper restoration of fullness or completeness of persons on a spiritual level.

183

184

|

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies

In these ways, religion and health care are intimately connected. Additionally, health care relates to religion through specific moral duties or callings (e.g., divine commands or requests) for charity as well as through an evangelical outreach (Kauffmann 1999) (e.g., mission work). As described below, this last element creates particular issues when health care ministries provide care to communities and individuals who share different moral outlooks than the religious identity of the hospital. However, there are more specific ways religion shapes health care. The view of morality of a particular religious tradition will shape three areas: individual choice, professional practice, and organizational identity. To begin, the norms of a particular religious tradition will shape, though not determine, the choices of individual patients. (Individual choices remain matters of personal conscience, though official teaching bodies or offices may put forth norms or principles by which individuals should make their decisions.) One example of this is in the use of birth control. According to the official teaching body of the Catholic Church, Roman Catholic spouses should refrain from using artificial contraception (e.g., condoms and oral contraceptives) as a means of controlling procreation (Hamel and O’Rourke 2002; for a comparison of Jewish and Catholic approaches to bioethics, see Mackler 2003). In contrast, the Jewish tradition allows methods of contraception and sterilization, although such norms tend to apply to female methods of birth control more than male methods (Dorff 2002). Next, although one can argue that physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals have their own morality, health care professionals often shape their practices with some influence of both health-related and religious moralities. In a surprising study, a significant proportion of physicians said that their religions affected the way they practice medicine (McCullough 2005). A principal example of this is an urologist who refuses to perform a vasectomy (a surgical method for male sterilization) for a patient who requests it on religious grounds: for the urologist, a vasectomy is a morally inappropriate form of birth control. (Note, however, that the urologist does not prevent his patient from obtaining the vasectomy; the urologist merely refuses to perform the surgery himself.) Finally, the morality of a religious tradition will shape the identity of a health care organization in specific ways by influencing institutional policies, procedures, and culture. For example, Catholic hospitals have specific guidelines to follow—the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (USCCB 2001)—which state that these hospitals should have concern for the poor and vulnerable (e.g., charity care) as well as should abide by Church teaching in bioethics (e.g., they cannot provide certain services like surgical procedures aimed at sterilization or other forms of birth control). The influence of religion on a health care organization’s identity will be the focus of this entry. To explore this topic, the author will first discuss the basis for religious sponsorship in health care. Next, he will describe the impact of religious morality on organizational identity by discussing the example of Catholic health care. Finally, he will conclude by summarizing two major social issues under this topic.

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies |

WHY RELIGIONS SPONSOR HEALTH CARE It is misleading to describe all faith-based health care organizations as “owned” by their particular religious traditions. While this may be true in some sense for some traditions, a more accurate and preferred term used to describe the relationship between a religion and a health care organization is sponsorship. Indeed, some leaders in Jewish health care resist the idea that the Jewish community owns its hospitals (Chottiner 2003). One reason for this is that there is no centralized ‘corporate’ hierarchy in Judaism as there is in, for example, Roman Catholicism. While independent Jewish agencies may own and operate hospitals, the Jewish tradition does not. Sponsorship more closely relates to management than ownership, although the terms are not mutually exclusive. One Christian author defines sponsorship in the following way: sponsorship is simply the devising of ways to guarantee or ensure that the healing and educating mission of Christ continues within the church through particular ministries, in light of rapidly changing circumstances in both society and the church. (Arbuckle 2006, emphasis in original) More specifically for Catholic ministries, Arbuckle states, “Sponsorship is the canonical stewardship of a ministry that is carried on in the name of the church” (Arbuckle 2006, emphasis in original). Put simply, sponsorship describes the relationship between a religious tradition and its distinct activities in society, which includes providing health care in hospitals. One can refer to these distinct activities as ministries (e.g., education, health care, etc.). Thus, on governance boards (e.g., a board of trustees), members of the sponsoring tradition often comprise the controlling majority; this ensures that the policies, procedures, and practices reflect the sponsoring traditions’ identity and therefore their moral norms (Curran 1997, 96). There are other specific legal implications of sponsorship, which are beyond the scope of this entry. For example, health care organizations are incorporated as distinct legal entities, yet sponsoring organizations retain specific powers (e.g., appointing board members) to preserve the organization’s identity. Why do religions sponsor health care ministries? By way of introduction to this area, the author will describe the approach of two traditions: Judaism and Roman Catholicism. However, several other traditions sponsor health care in the United States including, but not limited to, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, and Seventh-Day Adventism (see Numbers and Amundsen 1986). To begin, one can understand Jewish sponsorship of health care in terms of the responsibilities of individuals, health care providers, and communities to provide such care. That is, the ethical basis for sponsorship in Judaism stems from how that tradition understands duties to provide health care. Nevertheless, other aspects of American history and culture may have also contributed to the rise in Jewish-sponsored hospitals. For example, some Jewish hospitals were established to care for members of the local Jewish community (e.g., immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe). Other hospitals were established to offer places for Jewish physicians to train and practice when other hospitals

185

186

|

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies

would not accept them due to the unfortunate reality of anti-Semitism early in the twentieth century (Chottiner 2003, 1). Notwithstanding these historical factors, one finds the ethical motives for Jewish-sponsored health care in the Hebrew Bible as well as in the scholarly commentary by prominent rabbis. As Elliot Dorff and Aaron Mackler state, “According to Jewish law, we have the clear duty to try to heal, and this duty devolves upon both the physician and the society” (Dorff and Mackler 2000, 481). Indeed, several sources in both biblical passages as well as rabbinical texts describe the basis for this duty. Dorff and Mackler continue, [The Rabbis] found that authorization and that imperative in various biblical verses, including Exodus 21:19-20, according to which an assailant must ensure that his victim is “thoroughly healed,” and Deuteronomy 22:2 (“And you shall restore lost property to him”). The Talmud understands the Exodus verse as giving “permission for the physician to cure.” On the basis of an extra letter in the Hebrew text of the Deuteronomy passage, the Talmud declares that the verse includes the obligation to restore another person’s body as well as his property, and hence, there is an obligation to come to the aid of someone in a life-threatening situation. On the basis of Leviticus 19:16 (“Nor shall you stand idly by the blood of your fellow”), the Talmud expands the obligation to provide medical aid to encompass expenditure of financial resources for this purpose. (Dorff and Mackler 2000, 481) Thus, one sees the scriptural basis for Jewish-sponsored health care. In addition, the Jewish tradition suggests an important theological reason to sponsor health care: Jews are to model themselves after God and imitate Him. So, as God visits and heals the sick, so too should the Jewish people (Dorff and Mackler 2000, 482). Moreover, if individuals experience particular health needs, physicians and communities ought to respond to that need and provide necessary services. Insofar as there is an authentic health need, the duty to provide care exists (Dorff and Mackler 2000, 482–83, 491). (Dorff and Mackler do state that the Jewish tradition recognizes that providers have a claim to fair compensation for their services. Not all health care need be charity.) In summary, the Jewish tradition sponsors health care out of a concern for justice in the needs of the sick; scriptural and legal texts identify a duty to provide care that falls upon individuals, providers, and communities. Next, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) aptly describe Catholic-sponsored health care as being animated by the healing ministry of Jesus. In the general introduction to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), the bishops write, The Church has always sought to embody our Savior’s concern for the sick. The gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry draw special attention to his acts of healing: he cleansed a man with leprosy (Mt 8:1-4; Mk 1:40-42); he gave sight to two people who were blind (Mt 20:29-34; Mk 10:46-52); he enabled one who was mute to speak (Lk 11:14); he cured a woman

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies |

who was hemorrhaging (Mt 9:20-22; Mk 5:25-34); and he brought a young girl back to life (Mt 9:18, 23-25; Mk 5:35-42). Indeed, the Gospels are replete with examples of how the Lord cured every kind of ailment and disease (Mt 9:35). In the account of Matthew, Jesus’ mission fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases” (Mt 8:17; cf. Is 53:4). Jesus’ healing mission went further than caring only for physical affliction. He touched people at the deepest level of their existence; he sought their physical, mental, and spiritual healing (Jn 6:35, 11:25-27). He “came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly” (Jn 10:10). The mystery of Christ casts light on every facet of Catholic health care: to see Christian love as the animating principle of health care; to see healing and compassion as a continuation of Christ’s mission; to see suffering as a participation in the redemptive power of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection; and to see death, transformed by the resurrection, as an opportunity for a final act of communion with Christ. (USCCB 2001) Despite some criticisms that a Catholic presence in health care is no longer needed, Dennis Brodeur offers a rationale for Catholic health care to remain a distinctive player in American health care (Brodeur 1999). Brodeur outlines three reasons. One, healing is a primary aspect to Jesus’ ministries as revealed in the Gospels. The authors of the Gospels reflect healing both in Jesus’ own actions as well as in the parables he teaches. Two, the Catholic Church sees importance in engaging the modern world, which the Vatican II document, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), reflects (Brodeur 1999, 7). The ecclesiastical (church-related) reason Brodeur mentions stems from the Church’s commitment to promoting justice and seeking the common good (Brodeur 1999, 8–9). Society’s institutions ought to be structured so that each individual can reach proper human fulfillment in the context of community. Since health relates to one’s abilities to participate and reach this fulfillment, the Church sees the importance to having a presence in health care. Three, the link between faith and justice calls for institutions to respect the dignity of each human person, which includes providing an appropriate and adequate level of health care. Additional social justice principles give Catholic health care a distinctive, but not necessarily unique, approach to providing health care. An example is the special concern Catholic health care organizations give to the poor and vulnerable. THE EFFECT OF RELIGIOUS IDENTITY ON HEALTH CARE: THE CATHOLIC EXAMPLE Having described some bases for faith-based health care, it is now important to consider the ways that religious sponsorship affects how these organizations provide health care. The author will focus on Catholic health care for two

187

188

|

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies

major reasons: (1) it constitutes 16 percent of all hospital beds in the United States(Catholic Health Association 2008) and is the largest nonprofit provider of health care under single sponsorship; and (2) it has a large and well-documented literature on organizational identity in light of its moral teachings. While various offices in the Catholic Church worldwide provide guidance on moral matters, including those for health care, the United States Catholic bishops publish a document that contains ethical and religious directives for Catholic health services in the United States. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs) is not a comprehensive catalog of Church teaching, and it does not provide the extended theological and philosophical arguments in support of the Church’s moral teachings. Rather, it is a concise document health care organizations, providers, and patients use to decide on particular treatment decisions as well as to formulate institutional policies and procedures. In other words, Catholic hospitals and other health-related organizations turn to the ERDs as they grapple with the complex moral problems they face. The ERDs give Catholic health care institutions direction on what services to provide, what services not to provide, and how to provide those services. So, on the one hand, Catholic health care services include a variety of community outreach programs and charity care. Examples include parish nursing, tattoo removal programs for former gang members, charity care and clinics, and patient education seminars on diabetes and other health conditions. On the other hand, some services are prohibited. These include euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, elected (direct) abortions, direct sterilizations such as vasectomies, IVF, artificial insemination, and artificial forms of contraception. For the purposes of this entry, the author will explore the topic of birth control to describe how Catholic identity shapes the distinctive character of Catholic health care. Birth control remains a controversial aspect of the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual ethics; this controversy is no stranger to health care providers. While many Catholics and non-Catholics accept various forms of birth control—contraception and sterilization—the official teaching of the Catholic Church condemns any direct act that results in contraception (e.g., the use of a condom or the use of oral contraceptives) or sterilization (e.g., tubal ligations, which are surgical procedures that prevent eggs from traveling from the woman’s ovaries to her uterus during ovulation). These norms are based on a sacramental view of sexual intercourse. According to this view, a couple may never fundamentally separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex: every act of sexual intercourse should remain open to both the love expressed and the possibility of procreation in the context of marriage. Thus, the ERDs prohibit Catholic hospitals from providing contraceptive devices or sterilizing procedures (USCCB 2008; Directives 52 [contraception] and 53 [direct sterilization]). This norm also prohibits the use of certain assisted reproductive technologies like IVF (Directive 41). Moreover, out of respect for the dignity of the human person and the belief that human life begins at conception, Catholic hospitals cannot provide direct abortions (Directive 45). Taken by themselves, these Directives are consistent with the Church’s moral teachings on sexual ethics. However, they may also raise problems for victims

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies |

of sexual assault who seek help and compassion at Catholic hospitals. Thus, the U.S. bishops developed Directive 36 to suggest ways that Catholic health care providers can respond to the needs of these victims. Directive 36 states, Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum. (USCCB 2008) In the context of rape and other forms of sexual assault that may result in pregnancy, Catholic teaching permits the use of contraceptives, but it still prohibits elective, or procured, abortions. One reason why the Church permits contraceptives in cases of rape is that the marital covenant is void: the sexual act does not represent mutual love but is rather an act of violence. However, the use of oral contraceptives following rape does pose some problems. One major issue is that some drugs may prevent conception and prevent implantation depending on the time the woman takes the drug. Another issue is that conception may have already occurred in the time between the assault and the use of the contraceptive pill; tests to determine pregnancy may not provide certainty. Thus, Catholic health care providers may not know whether prescribing such medication prevents conception or induces abortion. In such cases, these providers (and patients) are unsure whether they are abiding by Church teaching by using such drugs. Another complicating factor here is how one thinks about pregnancy. On the one hand, the Catholic Church holds that human life ought to be respected from the moment of conception, which is associated with the completion of fertilization. On the other hand, a medical perspective holds that pregnancy does not begin until several days after fertilization when the embryo implants into the uterine wall. Therefore, from the perspective of the Catholic Church, any drug or device that prevents implantation causes abortion. Yet, from a medical perspective, any drug or device that prevents implantation is contraceptive. In summary, Catholic hospitals do not offer methods of artificial contraception or direct sterilization to patients in general. This is the result of the Church’s moral stance on human sexuality. If patients want those services, they must go to a different kind health care organization. However, Catholic hospitals are able to provide some treatments and contraceptive interventions to victims of sexual assault. Yet, Catholic hospitals do not offer abortion—surgical or chemical—to victims of sexual assault. Victims who wish to obtain such abortions must also look to a different hospital.

189

190

|

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies

CONCLUSION Faith-based health care organizations obtain their distinctive identities in light of their religious morality. Sponsorship connects religious traditions with their activities in the world, including health care. Sponsorship also ensures the distinctive character of these ministries by enabling institutional policies to reflect the religious morality of the tradition. However, when religious moralities encounter different moralities of members of the community, several issues emerge. However, two related issues stand out: the issue of religious and cultural diversity, and the range of services provided and community standards. First, the pluralistic nature of contemporary American society calls attention to different ways people think about the good life and therefore to the differences in various moralities—religious, professional, or otherwise. Thus, when faith-based health care attempts to retain a distinctive identity through specific policies and procedures, these may come into conflict with the decisions or preferences of patients such hospitals serve. Indeed, the historical evangelical motives of health care can no longer support prostheletyzing to patients. In contemporary society, there must be adequate respect for religious and cultural diversity. One should note, however, that respect for such diversity is a two-way street: providers as well as patients need to respect this diversity. One finds this respect in the bioethical tradition of informed consent. Second, the range of services provided by a faith-based health care organization may be in conflict with the community’s standards or needs. Furthermore, such scope of services may also be in conflict with the medical community’s standards. Access to abortion in rural areas is one example (e.g., if the only hospital is a Catholic one, access to abortion will be severely restricted, which may be unlawful). Another example is the area of growing controversy over the administration of medically-assisted nutrition and hydration (MANH) (e.g., feeding tubes) for patients in a permanent state of unconsciousness. Recent statements made by current Catholic Church leaders suggest that this is mandatory regardless of a patient’s medical condition; others claim that this is a departure from more traditional Church teachings (see Hamel and Walter 2007). More to the point, the religious obligation to provide MANH may be in direct conflict with legal requirements to honor a patient’s refusal of medical treatment as well as the medical standard of care for certain conditions. To be sure, the changing demographics of American society, the growing complexity of health care, and the evolving nature of religion will continue to evoke major issues at the intersection of faith-based health care and society. See also Abortion; Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide; Health Reform Movements; Neuroethics. Further Reading: Arbuckle, Gerald A. “Sponsorship’s Biblical Roots and Tensions.” Health Progress. September–October 2006. 87 (5): http://www.chausa.org/Pub/MainNav/News/ HP/Archive/2006/09SeptOct/Articles/Features/HP0609a.htm. Accessed February 6, 2008; Brodeur, Dennis. “Catholic Health Care: Rationale for Ministry.” Christian Bioethics. 1999. 5 (1): 5–25; Catholic Health Association. “Catholic Health Care in the United States—January 2008.” http://www.chausa.org/NR/rdonlyres/68B7C0E5-F9AA-4106B182-7DF0FC30A1CA/0/FACTSHEET.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2008; Chottiner,

Female Subordination in Christian Thought | 191 Lee. “Jewish hospitals getting scarce in 21st century.” The Jewish Chronicle. December 25, 2003. 43 (32): 1; Curran, Charles E. “The Catholic Identity of Catholic Institutions.” Theological Studies. March 1997. 58 (1): 90-108; Dorff, Elliot N. The Jewish Tradition: Religious Beliefs and Healthcare Decisions. Park Ridge, IL: The Park Ridge Center, 2002; Dorff, Elliot N., and Aaron L. Mackler, “Responsibilities for the Provision of Health Care,” in Life and Death Responsibilities in Jewish Biomedical Ethics, ed. Aaron L. Mackler. New York: The Louis Finkelstein Institute and The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2000; Hamel, Ronald P., and James J. Walter. Artificial Nutrition and Hydration and the Permanently Unconscious Patient: The Catholic Debate. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2007; Hamel, Ronald P., and Kevin O’Rourke. The Roman Catholic Tradition: Religious Beliefs and Healthcare Decisions. Park Ridge, IL: The Park Ridge Center, 2002; Kauffman, Christopher J. “Catholic Health Care in the United States: American Pluralism and Religious Meanings.” Christian Bioethics 5, no. 1 (1999): 44–65; Mackler, Aaron L. Introduction to Jewish and Catholic Bioethics: A Comparative Analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003; Mackler, Aaron L., ed. Life and Death Responsibilities in Jewish Biomedical Ethics. New York: The Louis Finkelstein Institute and The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2000; McCullough, Kevin W. “For Many Doctors, Beliefs Influence Their Practices; More Than Three-fourths Believe in God and More Than Half Believe in an Afterlife, a Survey Finds. Results Surprise the Study’s Author.” Los Angeles Times. Home Edition. July 4, 2005. F7; Numbers, Ronald L., and Darrel W. Amundsen, eds. Caring and Curing: Health and Medicine in the Western Religious Traditions. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986; Sullivan, Lawrence E., and Susan Sered. “Healing and Medicine: An Overview.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 6, 2nd ed., ed. Lindsay Jones. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference, 2005; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 4th ed. Washington, DC: USCCB, 2001. http://www. usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml. Accessed September 2, 2008.

Nicholas J. Kockler

FEMALE SUBORDINATION IN CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Contemporary discussions of female subordination in Christian thought typically center on the ordination of women. However, a broader range of issues pertain to these conversations, such as debates about the status and roles of women. These debates include disagreements about the importance of natural sexual differences versus the significance of gender constructions, as well as women as procreative agents versus women as public religious leaders.

WOMEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Jesus’s Treatment of Women In carrying out his ministry of teaching and preaching, Jesus includes women. He challenges patriarchal assumptions about women. For example, in Luke 7:36–50, Jesus welcomes a woman who was a sinner and allows her “to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and to dry them with her hair” (Luke 7:38). The Pharisees object to such an intimate encounter, but Jesus encourages the intimate encounter because it

192

|

Female Subordination in Christian Thought

comports with his inclusion vision of the Kingdom of God. Luke 8:2–3 (Matthew 27:55–56; Mark 15:40–41; Mark 23:49) mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Suzanna as those who accompany Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph are present during the death of Jesus; moreover, Mary Magdalene and Mary are the first ones present at the tomb to witness the resurrection of Jesus (Luke 28:1–10). In Luke 28:5, an angel addresses the women and praises them for their fidelity to Jesus: “But the angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified.’” When Jesus appears to the women, “they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshipped him” (Luke 28:9). Many scholars debate the formal religious leadership of women. Jesus selects (Matthew 10:1–4) and commissions twelve men to be his disciples: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:18–20). However, he rebukes them for their disbelief after his resurrection (Mark 16:14), in contrast to the women who had worshipped him. Did Jesus intentionally select his twelve based on their maleness? Was Jesus upholding a hierarchical perspective—based on his own maleness and the image of God the Father—that avows only men can administer the Word of God and build the Christian church? Scholars such as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza disagree: “Jesus and his movement followed the Jewish vision of the basileia, of God’s society and world that are free of domination and do not exclude anyone. This ‘envisioned’ world is already present in the inclusive table-community, in the healing and liberating practices, as well as in the domination-free kinship-community of the Jesus movement, which found many followers among the poor, the despised, the ill and dispossessed, the outcast, and women” (Fiorenza 1994, 96–97). Pope John Paul II concurs that Jesus promotes the dignity of women: “It is universally admitted—even by people with a critical attitude towards the Christian message—that in the eyes of his contemporaries Christ became a promotor of women’s true dignity and of the vocation corresponding to this dignity.” (Pope John Paul II 1988, paragraph 12; original emphasis). However, the Pope affirms that the maleness of Jesus is particularly constitutive of who Jesus is, and God’s relationship to the world: “The Bridegroom—the Son consubstantial with the Father as God—became the son of Mary; he became the “son of man”, true man, a male. The symbol of the Bridegroom is masculine. This masculine symbol represents the human aspect of the divine love which God has for Israel, for the Church, and for all people” (Pope John Paul II 1988, paragraph 25; original emphasis). Women in the Pauline Epistles The treatment of women in Paul’s letter has also received substantial scholarly treatment. Women mentioned include Lydia, the worshipper of God who was converted and baptized (“The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul”, Acts 16:14), the tentmaker Priscilla, with whom Paul “worked

Female Subordination in Christian Thought | 193

together” (Acts 18:3), Euodia and Syntyche, who “have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel” (Philippians 4:3), and Prisca and Aquila, “who work with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles” (Romans 16:3–4). Romans 16:5, additionally mentions the “church in their house” of Prisca and Aquila; it was common in the early Christian context for women to establish small house churches that helped to facilitate the growth of the Christian church. Paul describes women who possess leadership positions within the church. Paul commends the Church in Rome to Phoebe “a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well” (Romans 16:1–2). Deacons function as precursors to priests, but they still represent a part of Church hierarchy (see 1 Timothy 2:8–13 for the qualifications of deacons, including 2:11, which states, “Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things”). Despite these numerous references to women working with Paul, or participating in the institutional life of the church, there are Pauline images of women that convey submission and subordination. Does Paul restrict the roles of women only to those of mothering and tending to the home? The pericope of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 provides an illustration. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul writes: “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.” Paul bases his claim, in part, on a fundamental anthropological difference between men and women: “For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man” (1 Corinthians 11:7–10). Other passages indicating submissiveness for women include 1 Corinthians 14:34 (“women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says”), Ephesians 5:22–24 (“Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands”), and 1 Timothy 2: 9–15 (“Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent,” 1 Timothy 2:11–12). WOMEN IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION The role of women in the history of Christian life and thought is extensive. Perpetua, Felicitas, and Thecla are important early Christian martyrs, and several central medieval mystics and reformers were women, including Hildegard of Bingen, Catherine of Siena, Julian of Norwich, and Teresa of Avila. These women exemplify profound commitments to God, and therefore provide inspiring models of Christian faith, but the institutional church and theological perspectives do restrict their formal leadership roles within the Church. There

194

|

Female Subordination in Christian Thought

is historical precedence (in addition to Scripture accounts) concerning women deacons. Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea (325) and Canon 15 of the Council of Chalcedon (451) address women deaconesses. The latter canon states: “It is resolved that deaconesses are not to be ordained before they are forty years old, and this with careful scrutiny” (Clark 1983, 176). Do such documents lend credibility to current movements promoting women’s ordination? In 2002, the International Theological Commission of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concluded that women deacons mentioned in the ancient tradition of the Church were not equivalent to present day deacons; moreover, the sacrament of order clearly distinguishes between the ministerial roles of priests and deacons (Zagano 2007, 357–358). Another crucial aspect of the debate about Christian subordination of women concerns theological perspectives on women. Early theologians such as John Chrysostom (349-c.407 and Bishop of Constantinople from 398–404) and Jerome (347–420) extol the virtues of virginity as the only means for young girls and women to become spiritual equals with men. In interpreting the creation accounts, Ambrose of Milan (338–397) argues that woman was responsible for the fall, and that God intends different roles for men and women: “Just as a man is thought to be more skillful at public duties, so a woman is thought more skillful in domestic services” (Clark 1983, 33). Chrysostom obviates the notion that women are created in the image of God (imago dei); “The woman, however, is ‘the glory of man,’ since she is subjected to him” (Clark 1983, 36). Augustine (354–430) similarly insists that the male alone possess the image of God normatively; theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether submits that “woman’s subjugation is both the reflection of her inferior nature and the punishment for her responsibility for sin” (Ruether 1993, 95). Tertullian (c. 155–230) similarly affirms a secondary status to women. In his treatise On the Priesthood, Tertullian writes: “But when there is a need for someone to be set over the church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, let the whole female sex step aside from the greatness of the matter” (Clark 1983, 173–174). During the medieval period, debates about women deaconesses and ordination disappeared, as women’s religious roles within Christianity centered around women as nuns. In terms of wider social perceptions, women were perceived to be good homemakers and mothers. Theologians, ranging from Rosemary Radford Ruether, to Mary Daly, to Serene Jones, to Delores Williams, to Lisa Sowle Cahill, have argued that these procreative roles have been “determined” for women in ways that preclude true equality with men in society. This inequality, according to these thinkers, has been exacerbated by theological voices and institutional structures that uphold patriarchy. CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF WOMEN: NATURAL SEXUAL DIFFERENCES A recent document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith titled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World discusses the roles of men and women

Female Subordination in Christian Thought | 195

within the family, society, and the church. The text upholds the significance of natural sexual differences (rooted in biological differences), and repudiates the significance of cultural constructions of gender roles; it holds that attention to the former leads to collaboration between men and women, whereas considerations of the latter neglects sexual differences and leads to conflict between men and women. The Church believes that the biblical vision of the person, encapsulated in the two creation accounts in Genesis (Genesis 1:1–2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-25), provides insight into these natural sexual differences. In the first account, individuals are created equally as male and female by God as the imago dei (image of God). In the second account, Adam and Eve are sexually different, but they are relational and united in one flesh. It is only original sin that distorts and damages their complimentarity and relationality. The text summarizes the biblical vision of the person and its implications for relationality: “Their equal dignity as persons is realized as physical, psychological, and ontological complimentarity, giving rise to a harmonious relationship of ‘uni-duality’, which only sin and ‘the structures of sin’ inscribed in culture render potentially conflictual” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2004, paragraph 8). The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) extrapolates further specific traits unique to women, particularly women’s “capacity for the other.” This capacity for the other “is linked to women’s physical capacity to give life” but “this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2004, paragraph 13). Structured by natural sexual differences, a woman’s personality is mature, responsive and responsible, and hopeful. It also, according to the text, means that women have irreplaceable roles within the family. Following the guide of Pope John Paul II, the CDF upholds the primary role of women as mothers, but who may also work: “women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially, while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work-schedule, and not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress, with negative consequences for one’s own equilibrium and the harmony of the family” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2004, paragraph 13). The Pope envisions harmony for women in terms of work and family, but women must always prioritize the family in striving for this family. Critics of the Pope believe that his vision of harmony attenuates women’s autonomy and equality. Having established these notions of being a woman and their social implications, the CDF turns to the importance of feminine values in the life of the Church. The CDF affirms the central figure of Mary, from whom “the Church always learns the intimacy of Christ” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2004, paragraph 15). Mary provides the exemplary model for all women in the Church, who “contribut[e] in a unique way to showing the true face of the Church, spouse of Christ and mother of believers” ( Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2004, paragraph 16). Based on these understandings, the CDF concludes the following vis-à-vis the ordination of women: “In this perspective one understands how the reservation of priestly ordination solely to men does

196

|

Female Subordination in Christian Thought

CURRENT CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES ON ORDINATION The Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention, follow the Catholic Church and repudiate the ordination of women as priests. The provinces of the Anglican Church remain divided as to the legitimacy of women’s ordination, but the majority of them advocate for such ordination. Mainline American Protestant churches such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Methodist Church, ordain women. These Protestant practices derive, in part, from a claim that everyone stands equally (as sinners and as justified) before God within the priesthood of believers. These churches also endorse the election of women bishops, though there are considerable tensions within several denominations regarding such elections. In 2006 Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected as the head of the United States Episcopal Church, precipitating disagreement and splintering among the Church.

not hamper in any way women’s access to the heart of the Christian life. Women are called to be unique examples and witnesses for all Christians of how the Bride is to respond in love to the love of the Bridegroom” ( Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2004, paragraph 16). Critics of the Pope worry that the Christian message of love for all has not been fulfilled at the institutional level of the Church. CONTEMPORARY DEBATES ON WOMEN’S ORDINATION In 1994, Pope John Paul II wrote the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that reserves priestly ordination to men alone. In reiterating Catholic tradition, the pope quotes one of his earlier writings: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of time” (Pope John Paul II 1994, paragraph 2). Pope John Paul II affirms that the absence of ordination for women does not diminish respect for women’s dignity and cannot be construed as discrimination. He defends equality for women, but he argues that Scripture (Luke 22:32, when Jesus says to Peter: “but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers”), and tradition (“preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents”, Pope John Paul II 1994, paragraph 4), have definitely answered the question of women’s ordination once and for all. Opposing perspectives, such as those of Phyllis Zagano, argue that Scripture and tradition (e.g., the ecumenical councils of Nicea [325 a.d.] and Chalcedon [451 a.d.]) provide support for women as ordained diaconate. Zagano submits that the Church must retrieve these discarded voices and uphold women’s ordination (Zagano 2007).

Female Subordination in Christian Thought | 197

See also Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal; Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy. Further Reading: Bianchi, Eugene C., and Rosemary Radford Ruether, eds. A Democratic Catholic Church: The Reconstruction of Roman Catholicism. New York: Crossroad, 1992; Byrne, Livinia. Women at the Altar: The Ordination of Women in the Roman Catholic Church. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994; Clark, Elizabeth, ed. Women in the Early Church. Message of the Fathers of the Church. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1983; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect). “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World.” 2004. Available at: http://www.vatican. va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_ collaboration_en.html; Curran, Charles E., and Margaret A. Farley, eds. Feminist Ethics and the Catholic Moral Tradition. New York: Paulist Press, 1996; Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. “The Bible, The Global Context, and the Discipleship of Equals.” In Reconstructing Christian Theology, eds. Rebecca Chopp and Mark Lewis Taylor. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994; Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler. Discipleship of Equals: A Feminist Ekklesialogy of Liberation. New York: Crossroad, 1993; Jones, Serene. Feminist Theory and Christian Theology: Cartographies of Grace. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000; Parsons, Susan Frank. The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Pope John Paul II. “Mulieris Dignitatem.” 1988. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/ hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html; Pope John Paul II. “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.” 1994. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/ apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html; Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993; Zagano, Phyllis. “The Question of Governance and Ministry for Women.” Theological Studies 68, no. 2 (2007): 348–367.

Jonathan Rothchild

This page intentionally left blank

G GAMBLING AND THE RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE The vast majority of Americans have gambled at least once. One can place bets on dog and horse races in 43 states, buy lottery tickets in 40 states, gamble for charity in 47 states, and play at commercial casinos in 11 states. By 2007, all but two states (Hawaii and Utah) allowed some form of gambling. Gambling as a government-sponsored activity has exploded in the late twentieth century, and will clearly only increase in the twenty-first century. Is gambling a moral and social problem? What are the social costs of problem gambling, and do they outweigh the social and economic benefits of increased state-sponsored gaming? Finally, how does the rise of Native American gambling in the late twentieth century as a new income source for a traditionally deprived and impoverished minority population, impact on the moral arguments for and against gambling? While it may seem like it is a relatively recent social issue, the fact is that gambling has been a source of concern for many religious traditions for literally hundreds of years. WHAT IS GAMBLING? Definitions of gambling are elusive, but a helpful suggestion has been made by M. D. Griffiths, a scholar and historian of gambling in Western culture, as “an exchange of wealth determined by a future event, the outcome of which is unknown at the time of the wager” (Dickerson and O’Conner 2006, 7). Gambling is therefore a type of playing a game in which financial loss or gain for the players is part of—or even the main point of—the results of the game. Games can be played exclusively for the financial aspects, or financial aspects can be 199

200

|

Gambling and the Religious Conscience

introduced to games that otherwise do not have gambling as their primary intention (e.g., betting on races or professional sports). The controversies surrounding gambling stem largely from the large sums of money that can become involved. Left to small sums, there are few objections to introducing financial loss or gain to otherwise innocent pastimes. When, however, significant gains or losses are made part of the activity, gambling can become a storm center of debate that has strong religious involvement. The significant moral and social issues surrounding the tremendous growth of the gaming industry in the United States (and worldwide—Australian gaming is, per capita, much greater than in the United States) include concerns about the social costs of so-called addicted or pathological gamblers, of organized crime, and even of the equitable distribution of gaming earnings. GAMBLING IN WESTERN HISTORY Games of chance, often accompanied with serious consequences in winning or losing, have been a part of human civilization for as long as we have written records. In Gerda Reith’s (1999) important study, she notes that gambling of one kind or another has been an aspect of human play from the dawn of civilization. In Ancient Greece, Plato believed that play, including games of chance, were among the more noble aspects of human activities, while his fellow Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, on the other hand, believed gaming to be wasted effort and time. While there has always been a minority view in Western culture that has seen gaming, and gambling, as largely an innocent pastime, there is a dominant second tradition that stands closer to that ancient view of Aristotle by considering gambling a negative human undertaking. Lotteries are perhaps the most widely attested form of large-scale gambling in Western history, and state-supported lotteries that are recorded in medieval Europe as early as the fifteenth century were intended to help raise funds to pay for military fortifications. A HISTORY OF GAMBLING AND CHRISTIAN MORAL JUDGMENT IN THE WEST It is hard to separate the history of gambling in human civilizations with the history of the very idea of chance. Through a good part of human history, there was no such belief in chance—it was believed that all events reflected the will of gods, spirits, or guiding deities. Various ancient religions routinely practiced a kind of casting of lots or dice-like devices in order to discover whether gods or spirits agreed with the course of actions determined by human beings (e.g., whether a battle should be started on a certain day or month). It would be difficult to find specific biblical injunctions against gambling, and within Judaism and Christianity, for example, there is a history of tense coexistence with gambling, particularly from the perspective of historical Judaism and the Roman Catholic Church. However, there is a tradition of a more intensively negative view in the Protestant Christian tradition, with similarities to

Gambling and the Religious Conscience |

Aristotle’s notion of waste, and later, its associations with other activities seen as sinful (e.g., drinking and other forms of excess and, even more recently, organized crime). GAMBLING AND JUDAISM Within Judaism, there is a definite moral ambivalence. Jews living in Europe before the foundation of the state of Israel, being largely from poorer sectors of the population, often participated in purchasing government-sponsored lottery tickets, but excessive risk of financial resources in gambling was strongly discouraged by rabbinic commentators. In the modern state of Israel there is a national lottery, and casino-style gambling is popular in the traditional resort town of Eilat in the far south. However, excessive gambling is frowned upon in the Talmud, a central historic source of Jewish thought, and only moderately tolerated during the celebrations of Purim, which is a more historically recent, and religiously minor, Jewish celebration that is associated with the Book of Esther. GAMBLING AND ISLAM There are Islamic religious traditions that question gambling in much stronger terms than either Catholic Christianity or Judaism. In reacting to plans to build a casino in Manchester, England, in 2007, for example, one prominent British Muslim leader, Sheikh Hassan Ali Barakat (Imam of the Greenwich Islamic Centre in London) protested stating, “We see it as a cause of argument between husbands and wives, parents and children. Even the cause of suicides.” He cited the Quran: “Believers, do not unjustly devour each others’ wealth” (Al-Nisaa 4: 29). Even more direct, however, are those Islamic laws that are read by many Islamic scholars to prohibit any kind of financial transactions in which any one or more of the parties involved in the transaction gains wealth and deprives others of their wealth, without morally deserving it or rightfully earning it. The most commonly cited passage of the Quran that is read to strongly condemn gambling is 5:90–91: O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s handwork: avoid such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of God, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain? GAMBLING IN CHRISTIANITY In the medieval period of Europe, the Roman Catholic Church viewed gambling as unproductive and believed that it tended to encourage disorderly conduct, but while the Catholic Church definitely had a dim view of gambling activities, it never actually forbade such gaming. In the Protestant Reformation,

201

202

|

Gambling and the Religious Conscience

however, religious attitudes toward gambling hardened considerably—as gambling was seen to be associated with idleness, greed, blasphemy, and superstition. Games of chance were seen to be irreligious attempts to “force God’s hand,” but even more seriously, they were seen by Protestant Reformers to encourage an attitude among lower classes that wealth could come suddenly and without effort rather than from proper hard work and responsible decisions. FROM SIN TO FOOLISHNESS: CHANGING WESTERN ATTITUDES As strictly religious attitudes lost influence on European societies during the Enlightenment (eighteenth century), religious condemnations began to be replaced with ideas that gambling was an irrational and wasteful pastime. Such an attitude toward the foolishness, rather than the immorality, of gambling can be heard in a little poem cited by Henry Fielding, in 1732: A Lottery is a Taxation, Upon all the Fools in Creation; And heaven be praised, It is easily raised, Credulity’s always in Fashion: For, Folly’s a Fund, Will never lose Ground, While Fools are so rife in the nation (cited in Dickerson and O’Conner 2006, 2) THE MEDICALIZATION OF GAMBLING: PROBLEM AND PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING It is in the twentieth century that the notions of either sinful gambling, or irrational gambling began to be replaced with a medicalization of gambling as an illness that required intervention and therapy. Clearly, such attitudes were based on those cases where serious amounts of money were lost by those hardly able to handle such losses, rather than on the minor or moderate amounts lost by casual gamers who fly to Las Vegas or Atlantic City in the United States for a few days vacation. A good part of the ancient and medieval opposition to gambling was based precisely on this notion that gambling was engaging in a kind of secular or antireligious consulting of higher powers. It is only when the very notion of random chance begins to be a widely held idea that gambling moves from being considered an irreligious activity to one that is considered irrational because of the randomness of such gaming, and as an understanding of random actions and chance increased, so the awareness of risk in games of chance became a growing feature of the arguments of those who opposed this activity. Finally, Reith points out that as market economies developed in the West, attitudes toward gambling and risk-taking games changed from a religious view, to

Gambling and the Religious Conscience |

views of its risky character or as a calculated opposition to high risk. One should engage in money-making activities that minimize risk, not only in business, but also in leisure-time activities. As money-making became quite literally a way of life for a growing class of merchants, the minimizing of risk also became a way of life—extending to leisure as well as work. Some have argued that the gambling debate has been largely overruled by the very success of the industry, and the dependence on that industry in many local economies around the United States. The debate continues to focus, however, on the issue of “problem gamblers.” PROBLEM GAMBLING AND “PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLERS” The Australian Institute for Gambling Research has defined problem gambling as “the situation where a person’s gambling activity gives rise to harm to the individual player, and/or his or her family, and may extend into the community” (Dickerson and O’Conner 2006, 11). Studies conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago examined social and economic changes attributed to casino proximity—a casino within 50 miles of a community, in 100 samples, and the federal government issued a major report by the National Gaming Impact Study Commission in 1999. While the conclusions suggested that between one to two percent of gamblers (approximately three million people) can be classified as pathological gamblers and another three to four percent are termed problem gamblers (about three to eight million people), it is clear that the vast majority of gamblers engage in gambling without measurably negative social or economic impact on themselves or families. The NORC study concluded that the total societal costs of problem gambling were $4 billion each year, but noted that this is a fraction of the social costs incurred by society in relation to drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, heart disease, and smoking. Pathological gambling, on the other hand, has a recently defined set of diagnostic criteria according to the American Psychiatry Association. Among the more common criteria with which to diagnose pathological gaming, includes assessing whether a person: (1) is preoccupied with gambling (constantly thinking about past games and getting money for future betting); (2) needs to gamble with increasing amounts of money in order to achieve desired excitement; (3) has repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back, or stop gambling; (4) is restless or irritable when attempting to cut down or stop gambling; (5) after losing money gambling, often returns another day to get even (“chasing” one’s losses); (6) lies to family members, therapists, or others to conceal the extent of involvement with gambling; (7) has jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational career opportunity because of gambling; and (8) relies on others to provide money to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling. Furthermore, the NORC study concluded that the presence of a casino in or near a community did not significantly increase crime, and even, in some cases, noted small decreases.

203

204

|

Gambling and the Religious Conscience

On the other hand, however, opponents of gambling have strong arguments by pointing out that, although the percentage of gamblers who are problem gamblers is low, it is precisely these problem gamblers who are among the most profitable “clients” of gambling establishments, and therefore they are the least likely institutions to argue for limitations on, or assistance for helping, problem gamblers who may wish to end their destructive behaviors. NATIVE AMERICAN GAMING One particularly interesting factor in the consideration of gambling as a social and moral issue is the rise of Native American gambling as a major industry on Indian land. Indian gaming is defined as gaming (including, but not limited to, casinos) conducted by a federally recognized tribal government, and taking place on a federally established reservation or trust property. And, although this represents critically needed funds for often impoverished peoples, this amount accounted for less than a fourth of the gambling industry revenues nationwide in the same year. A study written in 2005, states that 30 states are home to more than 350 tribal gaming establishments, operated by over 200 tribes that decided to pursue gaming as a strategy for economic development. Only about one-third of the approximately 560 tribes in the United States recognized by the federal government conduct casino-style gaming on their reservations. In some cases, tribes are located in states that do not allow any form of gambling (notably Utah), but in other cases, the tribes have resisted gambling as a source of income—the most famous case being the Navajo, undoubtedly noteworthy because of their large population among Indian nations in the United States. Nearly half of all tribal gaming enterprises earn less than $10 million in annual revenue, and one-quarter earn less than $3 million each year. On the other end of the spectrum, only about 40 tribal casinos (or about one in ten) take in two-thirds of all Indian gaming revenues. Before the rise of Indian gaming, the options available to many Indian tribes were quite limited. Often located on land considered useless to other Americans, Indians have traditionally suffered some of the highest unemployment in the United States, and have historically attracted the least economic investment. While not distributed evenly among all Native Americans in the United States, it is impossible to deny that Indian gaming has initiated dramatic changes for the better for Native American tribal groups throughout the country. According to the 1990 census, while 13 percent of the total U.S. population fell below poverty level, nearly one-third of Native Americans lived in poverty, with unemployment rates reaching as high as 50 to 80 percent in some extreme cases on Indian lands. But as a direct result of gaming, total Native unemployment is down, educational opportunities have increased, and economic development in other areas of local investment is occurring. Furthermore, there appears to be relative consensus across available research that Indian gaming generates direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits for state and local communities.

Gambling and the Religious Conscience |

From a Native perspective, they are independent nations by treaty rights, and therefore there is already a high level of compromise with state governments, who have significantly benefited from profit-sharing arrangements. In Native terms, reservation lands are to be seen in the same way as the federal government recognizes a foreign country, and there ought to be no more resentment, interference, or taxation imposed on them—any more than the United States would expect to impose taxes or rules, for example, on Canada or Mexico, if either country should build a casino near the American border. From many federal and state governmental perspectives, however, there is a limit to tribal sovereignty, and thus, modern arrangements worked out between tribal and state governments on revenue sharing already represent a significant compromise between the two historically different perspectives on the meaning of tribal sovereignty. There are a number of issues that have been raised, particularly by Native gaming, that have further complicated this special aspect of the overall issue of gambling. First, the success of many Indian gaming establishments has lent new urgency to those Indian groups seeking federal recognition. However, even though many of these groups have struggled for federal recognition for decades, there is a new pressure on the federal government to impose limits on such recognition because of the widely held belief that gambling opportunities are what is “really behind” groups seeking federal recognition. There are well over 250 Native groups seeking tribal recognition in the United States. Second, tribal groups have sought to expand their land claims and work in partnership with outside gambling industry investors to increase their development. Why the Native developers are blamed for this, as opposed to the nonNative investors and industries, who are investing in their projects, however, is often hard to determine, other than viewing it from the perspective of long-term prejudices and racism. Third, Native economic development has resulted in new political clout. Once again, however, heavy investment in the political process by “interested parties” that include defense contractors, agricultural interests, and oil and automotive companies do not often raise the same concerns—and one can argue that Native Americans are simply exercising their economic power as others have done for a long time. SUMMARY While there are no clear or direct religious teachings for or against gambling in religious traditions such as indigenous, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the increasing levels of personal risk, and the increasingly serious financial implications of professional gambling institutions, continue to make it a controversial activity from the perspective of many major religious traditions. In recent years, the “medicalization” of gambling has changed the terms of debate from an older religious-based argument about risk or challenging the spirits or even testing God, to a debate about addictive and destructive behaviors that perhaps ought to be monitored in portions of the population in the same way

205

206

|

Genetic Research

that other medical or health risks are monitored as part of the responsibility of civil society. See also Genocide; Separation of Church and State. Further Reading: Barker, Thomas, and Marjie Britz. Jokers Wild: Legalized Gambling in the Twenty-first Century. Westport and London: Praeger, 2000; Castellani, Brian. Pathological Gambling: The Making of a Medical Problem. New York: State University of New York Press, 2000; Collins, Peter. Gambling and the Public Interest. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003; Dickerson, Mark, and John O’Conner. Gambling as an Addictive Behaviour: Impaired Control, Harm Minimisation, Treatment and Prevention. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006; Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathryn R.L. Rand. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2005; Mullis, Angela, and David Kamper, eds. Indian Gaming: Who Wins? UCLA Indian Studies Center: Los Angeles, 2000; The National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Available at: http:// govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc; Pasquaretta, Paul. Gambling and Survival in Native North America. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 2003; Reith, Gerda. The Age of Chance: Gambling in Western Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.

Daniel L. Smith-Christopher GENETIC RESEARCH The U.S. Department of Energy began its Human Genome Initiative in fiscal year 1987, and the National Institutes of Health began its project in 1988. The official starting date of the combined Human Genome Project, however, was October 1, 1990, and James Watson was appointed its first director. The stated objective of this 15-year project was to map and sequence the entire human genome, but the project was able to be completed early in April 2003. The genome comprises all the genetic material in our 46 chromosomes, which we now know contain the human’s full complement of between 20,000 and 26,000 genes. Scientists could develop four different methods of altering our genes from the results produced in the Human Genome Initiative. First, there is somatic (body) cell therapy in which a genetic defect in a body cell of a patient could be corrected by splicing out the defect and by splicing in a healthy gene. Second, there is germ-line gene therapy in which a genetic defect in the reproductive cells—egg or sperm cells— of a patient could be corrected so that the patient’s future offspring would be free of the defect. Next is enhancement genetic engineering. In this form of genetic manipulation a particular gene could be inserted to improve a specific trait, for example, either by adding a growth hormone to increase the height of a patient (think of a basketball player) or by genetically enhancing a worker’s resistance to industrial toxins. Finally, there is eugenic genetic engineering in which genes would be inserted into the egg or sperm to design the entire human subject. The first two types of genetic manipulation are therapeutic in nature because their intent is to correct some genetic defect. The other two types are not therapies but are concerned with improving or enhancing either various aspects of the patient or with changing the whole patient, including even his or her genetic progeny.

Genetic Research |

Any moral judgment about the genetic manipulation of the human genome is always shaped within a context. This context for many religious people, for example, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, is a complex set of religious beliefs and views of humanity (anthropology) that inform one’s moral thinking and judgment about genetic research on human subjects. Religious beliefs do not by themselves decide moral issues, but they do shape and inform the ways in which religious people think morally about them. Depending on one’s religious ideas, then, religious scientists may decide that many of the four types of genetic manipulation mentioned above might be judged as morally justified. On the other hand, if one works from a different set of religious and moral presuppositions, then one might well morally prohibit most, if not all, genetic manipulation the human genome. RELIGIOUS PRESUPPOSITIONS There are two basic religious presuppositions that form the context for one’s moral position on human genetic manipulation. The first presupposition is concerned with interpretations of: (1) who God is, (2) divine providence, and (3) how God acts in the world and in history. The second general presupposition is concerned with eschatology, that is, with one’s view of the final times or God’s kingdom. Thus, the first presupposition deals with the general relation between how God acts in the world and how humans act. The second deals both with whether the future is already determined and with who has responsibility for how the future will turn out. In other words, does God bring about the future of humanity alone, or do humans also have a role to play alongside God in determining the future? Views of God and of Divine Agency Two different views on the first religious presupposition are particularly important for judging the morality of genetic manipulation. In one perspective God is viewed as the one who has created the material universe and humanity and the one who has placed universal, fixed laws into the very fabric of creation. As sovereign ruler over the created order, God directs the future through divine providence. As Lord of life and death, God possesses certain rights over creation, which in some cases have not been delegated to humans and their authority. When humans take it upon themselves to take over God’s rights, for example, those rights to determine the future and to change the universal laws that govern biological nature, they act in a sinful manner. If one adopted the positions held in this perspective, then one would probably judge the scientist’s attempts to change the genetic structure of the human species, especially any attempt to engineer the entire human person, as human arrogance. This conclusion is confirmed in a TIME/CNN poll on people’s reaction to genetic research. Not only were many respondents ambivalent about this type of research on our genes, but a substantial majority of the respondents (58%) thought that altering human genes in any way was against the will of God (Time, January 17, 1994, p. 48).

207

208

|

Genetic Research

In the second and different perspective, God is interpreted as the one who creates both physical nature and humanity but who does not place universal, fixed laws into the fabric of creation. God’s actions in creation and in history are to continue to influence the world process, which itself is open to new possibilities and even spontaneity. Divine providence is understood as God responding creatively in new ways to the continually changing needs of history. Though there is some stable order in the universe, creation is not finished, and history is not yet determined. Consequently, God continues to act to influence the final outcomes of both creation and history and to respond to what humans are doing. Contrary to the first view that understands God as acting in a physical “place” in nature, in this view God’s action is understood as primarily persuasion, that is, persuading humans in the depths of their freedom to act responsibly. If one thinks that God has left most of material nature unfinished and believes that the future is not yet determined, then one would be more inclined morally to justify attempts at genetic manipulation, including possibly limited nontherapeutic attempts at genetic enhancement and eugenic engineering. Views of the Final Times or Eschatology Harvey Cox, a Protestant theologian, has identified three strains of eschatology that traditionally have been used in Judeo-Christian theologies: the apocalyptic, the teleological, and the prophetic. All three can be found both in ancient religious traditions and in modern secularized forms. Each strain has a different understanding of the final times and how God will inaugurate that future. Consequently, each view will understand quite differently the relation of humanity’s historical future to the final times, and each will formulate what our moral responsibilities are for making sure human history turns out right. The apocalyptic eschatology, which Cox traces to the influence of ancient near-eastern dualism, always judges the present as somehow unsatisfactory. In both its religious and secularized forms, this view of the final times negatively evaluates this world and its history, and it foresees imminent catastrophe. The religious form of this eschatology always draws a sharp distinction between God’s future in the kingdom and the conditions of our human history, and thus it generally argues for a great discontinuity between this world and the next. On the other hand, the teleological (or “goal oriented”) eschatology, which was derived principally from the Greeks but was adopted by Christians, views the future of the final times as the unwinding of a purpose inherent in the universe itself, the development of the world toward a fixed end. All creation, then, is moving toward some final end, for example, beatific vision or union with God, and thus there is some continuity between present human history and God’s future. In its contemporary secularized form, this strain understands the world and humanity as evolving. Because humans cannot believe that the cosmos and all that is within it can possibly be devoid of all meaning and purpose, they project onto the cosmos their own purposes. Of course, humans inevitably assign themselves a crucial place in the very goal of the universe.

Genetic Research |

Finally, the prophetic strain of eschatology, which is characteristically Hebrew in nature, views the future as the open area of human hope and responsibility. In the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament), the prophets did not, in the main, foretell the future; rather, they recalled Yahweh’s promise as a way of calling the Israelites into moral action in the present – and that moral action may then change what will happen in the future (such as avoiding judgment!). In its biblical form, then, the future is not known in advance, but it is radically open and lies in the hands of humans who must take up responsibility for it. In its modern secularized form, the prophetic eschatology places great hope in human responsibility for the future, and it views the future with its many possibilities. One of the most notable theologians of the twentieth century who adopted the apocalyptic eschatology and then applied it to issues in genetic research was the late Paul Ramsey, a Protestant theologian who taught at Princeton University. He regularly emphasized the discontinuity between this world and the next, and thus he always urged us to remain faithful to God’s future as that is represented in the divine covenant between humanity and God. Ramsey did not believe that we have any moral obligation to safeguard the future of humanity through genetic research. It is this apocalyptic view, which sees human history coming to an abrupt end through divine activity, that shapes and informs Ramsey’s interpretation of both our general moral responsibilities for the future and his specific moral prohibitions against genetic research. If one adopted either a teleological or a prophetic eschatology, however, then one would be more inclined morally to accept certain genetic interventions into the human subject. Both strains emphasize human responsibility for the future, although each does this differently. Both understand that the future is open. Consequently, these views of the final times or eschatologies, in either their religious or secularized forms, could lead one to justify morally some types of genetic manipulation, for example, somatic (body) cell therapy. However, because the prophetic eschatology in particular places the strongest emphasis on human responsibility for the future, it is possible that this strain would be very cautious about approving any form of genetic enhancement or germ-line eugenic engineering of the human subject due to the unforeseen harmful consequences associated with such genetic manipulation. VIEWS OF THE HUMAN: ANTHROPOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS There are many important anthropological presuppositions or views of the human that shape the background to one’s moral position on genetic manipulation, but only one will be discussed here. There is a religious set of anthropological issues that are concerned both with how we view ourselves as created in the image of God (imago dei) and with our interpretations of the fall of humanity. Though there is not space here to address other issues, it is important to realize that one’s evaluation of modern technology, one’s understanding of the nature and role of medicine, and one’s views of human sexuality and parenthood also affect a moral assessment of genetic engineering of ourselves and of our progeny.

209

210

|

Genetic Research

Religious Views of the Image of God and of the Fall (Human Sinfulness) All the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) believe that humans are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). However, there are two different interpretations of how religious people understand the image of God, which in turn shape moral judgments on genetic manipulation. The first interpretation defines humanity as a steward over creation. Our role is to protect and to conserve what the divine has created. Stewardship is exercised by respecting the limits that were placed by God in the orders of both biological (genetic) nature and society. This view is consistent with the understanding of God, discussed earlier, as the creator who has placed universal, fixed laws into the very fabric of creation. If we are only stewards over both creation and our own genetic heritage, then our responsibilities do not include the alteration of what the divine has created. Our principal moral duties are to remain faithful to God’s original creative will and to respect the laws that are both inherent in creation and function as limits to human intervention. The second interpretation of the image of God defines humans as cocreators with God in the continual unfolding of creation. As “created cocreators” we are both utterly dependent on God for our very existence and at the same time responsible for helping to create the course of human history. Though we are certainly not God’s equals in the act of creating, we do play a significant role in bringing creation and history to their completion. This view is consistent with an understanding of God who has begun the act of creation but who has not yet brought it to a final end. Both creation and history are open-ended, and their fulfillment partially requires the responsible exercise of human freedom. There are obviously limits to how far humanity can genetically manipulate itself, so we are not free to alter our genes anyway that we would like. Many religious people believe that humans have fallen from God’s original creation, and now sin has entered the world. However, there have been different interpretations of the depth of human sinfulness. One view, which was adopted by many of the early Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century and continues in the thought of some contemporary theologians, is that all aspects of the human are deeply fallen into sinfulness. This interpretation has led some to distrust that humanity will ever use modern technology for moral ends. Consequently, those who hold this view regularly seek to limit science’s extension of human control over our genes and the genes of our children. At the opposite end of the spectrum on this view of human sinfulness proponents almost entirely forget about the fall of humanity. They see only the possibilities open to human ingenuity and rational control, and thus they regularly support efforts to manipulate the human genome. By downplaying the effects of the fall on humanity, these proponents extol human freedom and control over physical nature and the future. Many of those who hold this view would support morally most, if not all, of the four types of genetic manipulation discussed earlier. An alternate view to these two extremes, which is historically consistent with Catholic thought, could be described as a moderately optimistic assessment of

Genocide | 211

the human condition. Though fallen, humanity remains essentially good and capable of knowing and doing the moral good with the grace of God. Proponents of this interpretation are not as quick to prohibit or to limit all forms of genetic alteration of the human species as those who subscribe to the first view of the fall. However, unlike the excessively optimistic view in the second interpretation, these proponents recognize that the human capacities to reason and to will the moral good continue to be affected by sin. Consequently, they are cautious about putting too much trust in humanity’s ability to use modern technology for moral ends. In the end, though, they are willing morally to endorse some limited forms of genetic manipulation, for example, somatic (body) cell therapy, but they tend to prohibit all types of genetic engineering or enhancement of the human person. They believe that all such attempts to engineer the person genetically will probably result in disastrous consequences for the human race due either to human error or to human arrogance and self-deception. See also Health Reform Movements; Neuroethics; Universal Health Care and Religious Ethical Issue. Further Reading: Anderson, W. French. “Genetics and Human Malleability,” Hastings Center Report 20 (1990): 21–24; Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion. New York: Harper & Row, 1966; Cole-Turner, Ronald, ed., Design and Destiny: Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Human Germline Modification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008; Cox, Harvey. “Evolutionary Progress and Christian Promise,” in Concilium Vol. 26: The Evolving World and Theology, ed. Johannes B. Metz, 34–47. New York: Paulist Press, 1967; Ramsey, Paul. Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970; Shannon, Thomas A. What Are They Saying About Genetic Engineering? New York: Paulist Press, 1985; Walter, James J. “Presuppositions to Moral Judgments on Human Genetic Manipulation,” Chicago Studies 33 (November 1994): 228–39.

James J. Walter GENOCIDE The relationship between religion and genocide has been an unfortunate and tragic one. In the twentieth century, the recurrences of genocide have been staggering and confounding, and the world community finds itself futilely uttering never again. Religion has contributed to hate, and has exacerbated ethnic and political tensions; preconditions for the occurrence of genocide. Yet, others point to critical resources within religion that function as bulwarks against genocide, because they promote peace through reconciliation and dignity. GENOCIDE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The twentieth century has witnessed some of the worst human atrocities in the form of genocide. Tragic examples include: the slaughtering of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey between 1915–1918; the seven million deaths that resulted from Stalin’s programmatic forced famine during 1932– 1933; the Nazi Holocaust and the murdering of more than six million Jews,

212

|

Genocide

Gypsies, and others; the reign of Pol Pot in Cambodia and his mass killing of approximately two million persons; the rapid extermination of 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994; and the 200,000 deaths as the result of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzogovina between 1992–1995. All of these examples of genocide reflect ethnic and religious conflicts and the dehumanizing effects of interlinking cultural and religious identities with political interests. In some cases, there are specific clashes between different religious groups, whereas in others there are power struggles created by the intrusion and then departure of colonial powers. Religion plays a definitive role in several of these genocide cases. The Nazis appealed to folk religion (“blood and soil”), appropriated Christian ideas about the reign of the kingdom of God, and convinced some Christian theologians of their truth; others resisted—notably Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Karl Barth—the Nazis precisely on theological and ethical grounds. In the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia “it was religion, wed to ethnicity [in the cases of Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Muslims], that clearly distinguished each ‘ethnic’ group from the others.” Thus, it has been suggested that combatants relied on religion to provide “primordial” and “ageold” justifications for people intent on war. Among the remarkable and disturbing aspects of genocide in the twentieth century, an ever futile chant “never again” continues to be ineffectual. For example, in the wake of the Holocaust genocide, the world community banded together to establish safeguards within international law. On December 9, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (and over one hundred nations have since ratified it). Among its provisions, the convention seeks to prevent “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Prohibited acts include murder, causing serious bodily harm, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; punishments

GENOCIDE IN DARFUR The genocide in Darfur, which began in 2003, has resulted in the deaths of over 400,000 persons and the displacement of over 2,500,000 others. Further demonstrating the interconnections between religion, politics, and ethnic identity, the genocide has specific religious dimensions: the Janjaweed (or devils on horseback) are Muslim fighters who have utilized a variety of methods (including mass murder, rape, and displacement) to exterminate Darfurians who practice Christianity and animism. The Sudanese government has backed the Janjaweed militia, and the international community has increasingly called for sanctions on the Sudanese government. Reports indicate that the militia has blocked humanitarian intervention aid, but many criticize the United Nations and the United States for the absence of sustained and proactive involvement in the genocide. The extent to which the Muslim identity of the Janjaweed factors into the equation remains unclear, but numerous religious institutions, ranging from various Christian denominations, Jewish groups, and Muslim communities, have called for an end to the violence.

Genocide | 213

for such acts are to be administered by state tribunals or international tribunals. Nevertheless, as noted above, the mass killings of persons continued to haunt the twentieth century. COMPETING RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES ON THE “CONQUEST” OF AMERICA Indeed, genocide is not relegated to the twentieth century; moreover, it is not a phenomenon limited to the world outside of the United States. Some contend that the discovery of the New World, the incipient founding of America, and the conquest of the indigenous persons, constitutes genocide of potentially unsurpassed proportions. Tzvetan Todorov, for example, argues that “the sixteenth century perpetuated the greatest genocide in human history.” Todorov’s claim raises significant debates vis-à-vis religion and genocide. The medieval Crusades, of course, had interwoven religious aspirations (e.g., the reclaiming of Jerusalem and the conversion of those practicing Islam and other religions) with coercive and violent means. Here, Christopher Columbus undertook what he thought was a benevolent religious objective. Does he re-present the Crusades, or does he initiate a comprehensive program of conversion? Clearly viewing Columbus’s actions as carrying out the former, Todorov writes: “a kind of Quixote a few centuries behind his times, Columbus aspires to set off on a crusade to liberate Jerusalem!” (Todorov 1992, 11). Columbus therefore seeks to spread Christianity and desires to win souls for God. In the process, Columbus transforms the New World by imparting the system of meaning of the Old World: “he seeks to rename places in terms of the rank they occupy in his discovery, to give them the right names; moreover, nomination is equivalent to taking possession” (Todorov 1992, 27). He implements a system whereby the Indians must become like the Spaniards—in the forms of their names, language, customs, values, and beliefs— in order to assimilate them and “propagate the Gospel” (Todorov 1992, 43). A counter-model to Columbus is Father Bartolomeo de las Casas, who argues for the humanity of indigenous Americans on reasoned natural law grounds and the biblical witness of justice. In contrast to Columbus’s construal of the Indians as a tabula rasa to be named, Las Casas recognizes the otherness of the Indians as distinctive from Western culture and as representative of the poor one in the Gospel, and ultimately, of Christ himself (Gutierrez 1993, 455–456). While Columbus seeks to transform the Indians (which may include coercive practices of slavery and possibly murder), Las Casas denounces violent means as a mechanism for good ends. A fortiori, he argues that such practices contradict the central teachings of Christianity: “Hence the purpose God intends, and for the attainment of which he suffered so much, may be frustrated by the evil and cruelty that our men wreak on them with inhuman barbarity. What will these people think of Christ, the true God of the Christians, when they see Christians venting their rage against [the Indians] with so many massacres?” (Las Casas 1992, 26–27). Massacres in the name of Christ, or winning souls for God through violent coercion, violate the integrity and goodness of God’s creation. Las Casas holds: “Again, if we believe that such a huge part of mankind is barbaric, it would follow that God’s design has for

214

|

Genocide

the most part been ineffective, with so many thousands of men deprived in the natural light that is common to all peoples. And so there would be a great reduction in the perfection of the entire universe—something that is unacceptable and unthinkable for any Christian” (Las Casas 1992, 36). Though he himself affirms that Christianity is universal truth, Las Casas concludes that “[w]here the Catholic faith has been preached in a Christian manner and as it ought to be, all men are bound by the natural law to accept it, yet no one is forced to accept the faith of Christ” (Las Casas 1992, 46). In sum, the figures of Columbus and Las Casas represent two different positions on the question of religion and genocide. RELIGION AND GENOCIDE: COMPLICITY OR RESISTANCE? Another dimension of the discussion regarding religion and genocide pertains to the broader questions of the relationship between religion and violence. R. Scott Appleby (2000) submits that the relationship between religion and violence can only be accurately characterized as ambivalent. He insists that construals of religion are reductive if they fail to appreciate this ambivalent relationship: “The either/or method of analyzing religion—built on the assumption that one must decide whether religion is essentially a creative and ‘civilizing’ force or a destructive and inhumane specter from a benighted past—is no less prevalent for being patently absurd” (Appleby 2000, 10). That is not to say, of course, that radically different positions do not emerge with respect toward violence. Appleby sketches two religious positions: “The religious peacemaker is committed primarily to the cessation of violence and the resolution of conflict: reconciliation or peaceful coexistence with the enemy is the ultimate goal. By contrast the extremist committed primarily to victory over the enemy, whether by gradual means or by the direct and frequent use of violence” (Appleby 2000, 13; original emphasis). Appleby examines both perspectives and their political and ethical implications for violence. He addresses fundamentalism as a source for religious extremism, where violence can be a sacred duty (that may include acts of genocide). Appleby also considers the extent to which stories of communal suffering—that function as religious myths—more subtly reinforce divisiveness in terms of cultural identity: “The conflict made us who we are. We are defined by our responses to the injustices delivered on us by the enemy. In the stories we tell about conflict, about our suffering and endurance, we give voice to our deepest sense of meaning and purpose as a people” (Appleby 2000, 173; original emphasis). Yet, he also holds that there are resources within religion that can foster reconciliation, forgiveness, and transformation. These resources are not limited to specifically religious ones; rather, they reflect different religions’ attempts to interconnect religious values and political and legal mechanisms: “The internal pluralism of Christianity, Islam, and other major religious traditions enables religious acts to select and develop theologies and moral precepts that accommodate universal human rights norms and enhance the building of local cultures of peace” (Appleby 2000, 276–277). Religion can thus contribute to a critical and constructive response to genocide.

Genocide | 215 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND TRUTH COMMISSIONS The establishment of the International Criminal Court to punish crimes against humanity was viewed by many as a decisive international mechanism for combating genocide. At the Rome conference in 1998, the United States joined China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen as the only countries to vote against the Rome Statute instituting such a court. The United States did sign the statute, but President Bush informed the United Nations in May 2002 that the United States will never ratify the Statute, and therefore has no legal obligations. Despite these objections, the Statute entered force on July 1, 2002 (after the requisite 60 countries ratified it), and one hundred countries have now ratified it. Various religious groups, including the Catholic, Quaker, and Lutheran churches, have voiced support for the court. The permanent court has begun to launch criminal investigations against those individuals abusing human rights, including mass atrocities carried out in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Darfur, Sudan. The American objections—principally on the grounds of sovereignty—may be said to have failed to appreciate the importance of punishing crimes such as genocide that offend the conscience of the world community. Moreover, truth commissions—such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa—constitute effective ways to address the wounds of crimes against humanity. The Court and the commissions can work together to ensure that there can be a middle path between impunity (where offenders go unpunished) and vengeance (which fails to promote restoration, reconciliation, and healing). Truth commissions disclose the truth and begin dialogue crucial for mending relationships in postconflict situations. Many theologians, notably John de Gruchy, have supported truth commissions as consistent with theological notions of covenant.

THE RESPONSES TO GENOCIDE: EXCLUSION AND EMBRACE Reflecting on his firsthand experience in Croatia during the war in former Yugoslavia, Miroslav Volf discusses the dialectic of exclusion and embrace. One of the features of exclusion, which bifurcates the world into “us” and “them,” is an indifference to the sufferings of others (such as the victims of genocide). Volf states: “Especially within a large-scale setting, where the other lives at a distance, indifference can be more deadly than hate” (Volf 1996, 77). Such indifference explains, in part, why, for example, the United States failed to act during the 100 days of the Rwandan genocide. Indifference signals a failure to possess self-reflexive awareness in terms of one’s own participation in the suffering of others; it reflects a presumed innocence, and assigns guilt to others. Viewed theologically (that is, specifically from the Christian tradition), Volf argues that such indifference and presumed innocence are false and in need of transformation: In the name of the one truly innocent victim and what he stood for, the crucified Messiah of God, we should damask as inescapably sinful the world constructed around exclusive moral polarities—here, on our side, ‘the just,’ ‘the pure,’ ‘the innocent,’ ‘the true,’ ‘the good,’ and there, on the other side, ‘the unjust,’ ‘the corrupt,’ ‘the guilty,’ ‘the liars,’ ‘the evil,’—and

216

|

Genocide

then seek to transform the world in which justice and injustice, goodness and evil, innocence and guilt, purity and corruption, truth and deception crisscross and intersect. (Volf 1996, 85) This recognition of sin creates the conditions for the possibility of embrace and forgiveness. Forgiveness does not replace, but rather enthrones justice. The only way to embrace victim and offender, the one who perpetuates horrible acts of violence, because “[i]n the presence of God our rage over injustice may give way to forgiveness, which in turn will make the search for justice. If forgiveness does take place it will be but an echo of the forgiveness granted by the just and loving God” (Volf 1996, 125). Claims about the nature of the imago dei and the paschal mystery (the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ) can underpin Christian resistance against genocide. Responses to genocide have raised complicated questions about the possibilities for peace. Many view the Catholic Church as complicit in the Holocaust genocide, and in later genocides, for its inability to act quickly and decisively. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI has identified the importance of remembering the Holocaust and Rwanda genocides as crucial for fostering dialogue. Can dialogue confront both the realities of the past and the present challenges? Can this dialogue align with human rights discourse and international law in ways that secure peace and harmony? Moreover, as in the case of Rwanda, will the world community fail to act when it views those under the threat of genocide as politically expedient? Was it just when the United Nations withdrew its peacekeeping forces after they suffered casualties and death and thereby exposed defenseless Tutsis to the machetes of murdering Hutus? Was it just when European nations entered into Rwanda to retrieve only their own citizens? Is humanitarian intervention in the form of aid an adequate response to the suffering inflicted by genocide? These are complex questions, but, in order to circumvent the endless cycle of futilely proclaiming never again, individual countries, international institutions (principally the United States), and international mechanisms (such as the International Criminal Court) must interrogate their basic values and determine that genocide cannot coexist with these values. See also Apocalypticism and Nuclear War; Just War; Terrorism. Further Reading: Appleby, R. Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Foreword by Theodore Hesburgh. New York: Rowan and Littlefield, 2000; Ellis, Marc. Unholy Alliance: Religion and Atrocity in Our Time. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997; Glover, Jonathan. Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001; Grenke, Arthur. God, Greed, and Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries. Washington, D.C.: New Academia Publishing, Inc., 2005; Gutierrez, Gustavo. Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ. Translated by Robert Barr. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1993; Las Casas, Bartolomé. In Defense of the Indians. Translated and edited by Stafford Poole, C. M. Foreword by Martin Marty. Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1992; Ludemann, Gerd. The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of The Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997; Naimark, Norman. Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002; Rittner, Carol, John K. Roth, and Wendy

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology | Whitworth, eds. Genocide in Rwanda: Complicity of the Churches? St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2004; Roth, John K., ed. Genocide and Human Rights: A Philosophical Guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005; Rubinstein, William D. Genocide: A History. New York: Pearson Longman, 2004; Sells, Michael A. The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Rwanda. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998; Todorov, Tzvetan. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. Translated from the French by Richard Howard. New York: Harper Perennial, 1992; Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.

Jonathan Rothchild GLOBAL WARMING AND PROSPERITY THEOLOGY Over the past 40 years, Protestant evangelical Christianity has become an increasingly powerful force in American politics, influencing policies governing everything from abortion and the teaching of evolution, to relations with the Middle East, and responses to global climate change. Evangelical Protestant Christians played a dominant role in the rise to power of President George W. Bush in 2000, as well as his reelection in 2004, and have exerted considerable influence in shaping the Bush administration’s environmental policies and responses to global warming. From the beginning of the Bush presidency in 2000, evangelical Protestant and other conservative religious leaders have actively opposed and condemned the environmental movement and scientific warnings about global warming, supporting instead free enterprise and economic growth as the appropriate solution to environmental devastation. As a virtual consensus has emerged in the scientific community on the reality of global warming and its human causes, however, an increasing number of evangelical Protestants in the latter years of Bush’s second term have joined together in a green evangelical creation care movement, challenging the prosperity and dominion theology underlying the conservative environmental platform. THE CORNWALL ALLIANCE: A CURSED PLANET, PROSPERITY THEOLOGY, AND THE ETHIC OF DOMINION In the fall of 1999, a group of conservative religious leaders, economists, and scientists founded the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), laying out their principles in the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, a document drafted in West Cornwall, Connecticut, in October of 1999, and published in the spring of 2000. Its signatories included many prominent leaders of the Religious Right: James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family; Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ; and Catholic Father Robert A. Sirico, who founded the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Exemplifying and defining conservative Christian views on the environment and global warming, the Cornwall Declaration constitutes “the first

217

218

|

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology

major pronouncement on environmental issues by a coalition of conservative religious groups” (Berkowitz 2000). Expressing a strong faith in free enterprise, the Cornwall Declaration argues at the outset that “growing affluence, technological innovation, and the application of human and material capital are integral to environmental improvement” (Cornwall Declaration 2007, Concern #1). The writers bestow a biblical and theological justification to such an embrace of wealth, the free market, and economic growth: bearing the image of God, human beings are unique in their God-given ability to “enrich creation” and thereby address the problems of poverty and disease in the developing world (Cornwall Declaration 2007, Concern #1). E. Calvin Beisner, one of the main contributors to the Cornwall Declaration, asserts: “To slow economic development by reducing energy use is to condemn the world’s poor to more years of high morbidity and mortality than they otherwise would have to suffer” (Beisner 2005, 17). Beisner believes that aid for the world’s poor lies not in reduced energy consumption or conservation efforts, but in continuing economic growth that will improve overall infrastructure, health, and sanitation in impoverished nations. The faith expressed by the Cornwall Declaration in economic growth as a solution to poverty and environmental destruction, reflects, in part, the influence of Prosperity Theology. Also known as Health and Wealth, Name It and Claim It, Word of Faith, and, in its most recent form, Prosperity Lite, Prosperity Theology’s roots in the United States can be traced back at least to the Calvinist notion that wealth is a sign of God’s blessing. After the Civil War, the Gospel of Wealth, as exemplified by Baptist preacher Russell H. Conwell’s Acres of Diamonds sermon, fueled the expanding capitalism of the era, transforming “an older Calvinist belief in wealth as God’s blessing into the declaration that poverty was sinful and that it was the duty of every Christian to become rich” (Albanese 2007, 99). Contemporary exponents of Prosperity Theology include Houston megachurch pastor Joel Osteen, numerous televangelists, and United Methodist pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, who delivered the benedictions at both inaugurations of George W. Bush. Osteen, and other prosperity theologians, choose John 10:10b as their cornerstone biblical verse, where Jesus proclaims: “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Van Biema and Chu 2008, 6). Given Jesus’ admonition in the Sermon on the Mount to store up treasures in heaven rather than on earth (Matthew 6:19–20), and his warning regarding a rich man that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:24), it is not surprising that Prosperity Theology has found many critics in the evangelical world. Megachurch pastor Rick Warren, author of the bestseller The Purpose Driven Life, condemns prosperity theologians for setting up a false idol, insisting: “You don’t measure your self-worth by your net worth” (Van Biema and Chu 2008, 2). Evangelical theologian Ben Witherington has denounced Prosperity Theology as a “false gospel” and a “disease of our American culture” (Van Biema and Chu 2008, 6). Many critics accuse Prosperity Theology of selling out

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology |

to the culture of American materialism in viewing God as merely “a celestial ATM” (Van Biema and Chu 2008, 8). Defending Prosperity Theology against the charge that it overlooks the plight of the poor in favor of material gain, Kirbyjon Caldwell, who directed the construction of a large affordable housing project, insists “you cannot give what you do not have . . . If I am going to help someone, I am going to have to have something with which to help” (Van Biema and Chu 2008, 8). Ironically, as Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero notes, Prosperity Theology appeals particularly to the poor, to whom it offers hope and serves as a form of liberation (Van Biema and Chu 2008, 5). Moreover, as Prosperity scholar, Milmon Harrison, points out, it is not surprising that Prosperity Theology often seems to overlook poverty and other social ills, since its philosophical approach to assisting the poor “is encouraging people not to be one of them” (Van Biema and Chu 2008, 7). Perhaps the most striking challenge within evangelical circles to the Cornwall Declaration’s faith in Prosperity and the free market, comes out of the New Monastic movement, whose leaders include Shane Claiborne, founder of The Simple Way faith community in North Philadelphia, and Jim Wallis, founder of the Sojourners community in Washington D.C. (Van Biema and Chu 2008, 7). Adopting a simple, communal lifestyle in solidarity with the poor in inner city America, the New Monastics have given up material wealth to embrace what Claiborne, in his 2000 article, terms the “downward mobility of the gospel” (Claiborne 2000). Lamenting the materialism that has infected Christianity in America, Claiborne delivers a potent critique of capitalism and the system of charity it engenders: “Charity assures that the rich will feel good while the poor will remain with us. It is important that the poor remain with us, because our capitalist system hinges on it. Without someone on the bottom, there is no American dream and no hope for upward mobility” (Claiborne 2000). For Claiborne and other New Monastics, the solution to poverty lies not in material gain, but in the radical, self-sacrificial love proclaimed by Jesus that shatters the walls separating rich and poor. Besides embracing prosperity as an all-encompassing solution, the Cornwall Declaration espouses an ethic of dominion toward the natural world. Opposing those who would leave nature “untouched by human hands”, it dismisses such an approach as “romanticism” that “leads some to deify nature or oppose human dominion over creation” (Cornwall Declaration 2007, Concern #2). Giving no explicit consideration to the human overpopulation problem, the Cornwall Declaration insists that humans “are called to be fruitful . . . and to enhance the beauty and fruitfulness of the rest of the earth” (Cornwall Declaration 2007, Belief #7). Beneath the ethic of dominion, as interpreted by the Cornwall writers, lies the assertion that the earth and all living creatures were cursed by God as a result of the Fall of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1–19): “By disobeying God’s law, humankind brought on itself moral and physical corruption as well as divine condemnation in the form of a curse on the earth” (Cornwall Declaration 2007, Belief #5). This idea has been particularly developed by theologian E. Calvin Beisner. In his 2005 article, Beisner reveals the biblical basis for this view. Following the later

219

220

|

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology

theological tradition (reflected, for instance, in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2) of identifying the serpent in the Garden of Eden as Satan (though no such identification is made in the original story), Beisner concludes that God’s judgment on the “Satanic serpent” extends to “all the beasts of the field, birds of the air, and fish of the sea over which God had given Adam and Eve (sic) dominion in 1:28” (Beisner 2005, 14). To support his interpretation that God’s curse of the serpent extended to all animals, Beisner cites the Noah story conclusion (Genesis 9:1–3), in which God, reiterating Genesis 1:28–29, reestablishes human dominion over all living things (Beisner 2005, 14). As a result of God’s curse on the serpent, Beisner argues, all animals must live “under human dominion” (Beisner 2005, 14). In addition, he attributes God’s judgment as extending to the ground itself, which God curses (Genesis 3:17) because of Adam’s disobedience (Beisner 2005, 14). Other theologians have argued, however, that by itself, the story of the Fall and God’s resulting judgment does not explicitly state that God cursed all animals when he cursed the serpent. Indeed, God actually singles the serpent out among all other animals (Genesis 3:14): “Because you have done this, cursed are you among all animals and among all wild creatures; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” Nor does God’s curse upon the ground imply a curse on the earth as a whole. In a passage attributing the origin of agriculture to God’s curse upon the ground, Adam, the first human, must till the soil (Hebrew adamah, equivalent to the English humus) from which God made him, and to which he must return upon his death (Genesis 3:17–19). Nowhere in Genesis does God ever curse the whole earth, which God recognizes as good (Genesis 1:9–10). Beisner appears to derive his interpretation of the earth and living creatures as cursed not primarily from the Genesis 3 account, but rather from a passage from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans in the New Testament. Arguing that the “New Testament ties the restoration of the Earth from the curse to human redemption through Christ Jesus,” Beisner quotes Romans 8:18–23, which includes the hope (Romans 8:21) “that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Beisner 2005, 16). Reflecting, in part, the apocalyptic worldview of Paul, who saw the world as enslaved to decay in an evil age soon to end with the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth (Galatians 1:4; I Corinthians 7:31; I Thessalonians 4:15–17), Beisner states: “We should expect increasing liberation of the Earth from God’s curse, a process that shows itself in increasing human life, health, and prosperity” (Beisner 2005, 16). The role of human beings in this ongoing process of liberation is to be “wise, holy and fruitful” stewards who “fill, subdue, and rule the Earth” by transforming it from “wilderness” to the “garden city” described in “Revelation 21 and 22 . . . as the New Jerusalem” (Beisner 2005, 14). But critics point out that Beisner’s “wise, holy and fruitful stewardship” is expressed most clearly in his outspoken opposition to any practical measures, such as those outlined in the Kyoto climate agreement to curb the CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming (Beisner 2005, 15). Echoing the Cornwall Declaration’s assertion that the earth is not best untouched by human hands (Cornwall

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology |

Declaration 2007, Concern #2), Beisner argues that although CO2 emissions may cause some warming of the atmosphere, their overall effect is positive, since rising CO2 levels “fertilize the whole world” by enhancing plant growth and increasing agricultural yields (Beisner 2005, 15). The skepticism about global warming expressed by Beisner and his colleagues, until recently, was widely shared by the majority of religious and political conservatives in the United States. However, Beisner’s argument, promoted heavily by the American coal industry, that increasing CO2 levels will fertilize the whole earth and lead to higher crop yields, has been called into question by research published in 2005 indicating that grasses, which include the majority of world food crops, benefit far less from increased CO2 levels than do trees. More recently, questions have surfaced about the agenda and objectivity of the Cornwall Alliance. As reported by Bill Moyers in Is God Green?, a 2006 Public Television documentary on evangelicals and the environment, Beisner and his colleagues received funding from Exxon Mobil, one of many oil companies supporting the Global Climate Coalition, whose stated purpose was “to cast doubt on the theory of global warming” (Moyers 2006). Perhaps the most formidable challenge to the religious conservative platform on the environment and global climate change, however, comes from within the fold. In early 2006, a group of 86 evangelical leaders formed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) presented their environmental position in a statement titled Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action. The ECI statement affirms that global climate change is real, that it is being caused particularly by rising CO2 levels from the burning of fossil fuels, and that the consequences of global warming will be severe, especially for the world’s poor. In support of its claims, the ECI statement cites the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose scientific assessment on climate change was chaired from 1988 to 2002, the statement notes, by Sir John Houghton, an evangelical Christian. In addition to his evangelical background, Houghton is also an Oxford emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Physics. The divide in the evangelical community continued to widen as Beisner and his colleagues, now reconstituted as the Cornwall Alliance, rushed to publish a report titled A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming, criticizing the ECI’s statement at every turn. Arguing that global warming over the last 150 years is likely due to natural cycles, that the results of increasing CO2 levels will actually be positive (in the form of higher agricultural yields, etc.), and that the “idea of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is an illusion,” the report castigates the ECI signers for endorsing a policy which will condemn the world’s poor to short lives of misery spent in mud huts “amid swarms of diseased mosquitoes and tsetse flies,” drinking “contaminated water,” and eating “paltry, mold-infested food” (Beisner et al. 2006, 2–3; 8–10; 16–17). Instead of any attempts to curb CO2 emissions, Beisner and his colleagues continue to support free enterprise, technological, and economic development (based on the continued consumption of fossil fuels), as the only viable solution to global poverty.

221

222

|

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology

Following the 2006 publication of the Cornwall Alliance’s Call to Truth, Houghton published his own call to prudence titled Global Warming, Climate Change and Sustainability: Challenge to Scientists, Policy Makers and Christians. While not citing Beisner and his colleagues directly, Houghton challenges many of their primary arguments. First, he reiterates the latest findings of the IPCC that the global warming observed since 1750 is due overwhelmingly to human consumption of fossil fuels, and not to any natural cycles, emphasizing that “the rise in global temperature (and its rate of rise) during the 20th century is well outside the range of known natural variability” (Houghton 2007, 4). Second, he outlines some of the many predicted negative results of global warming (more extreme drought and flooding leading to massive displacement of human populations, acidification of ocean water, extinction of 15–40% of species) that will far outweigh any positive effects due to the “fertilising effect on some plants and crops” (Houghton 2007, 6). Third, he emphasizes that the conclusions of the IPCC, based on the work of “several thousand scientists” worldwide, have been endorsed by the scientific academies of all the major countries of the world (Houghton 2007, 7). He also laments the efforts of “strong vested interests” who have spent millions of dollars supporting campaigns to “deny the existence of any scientific evidence for rapid climate change due to human activities” (Houghton 2007, 7). The science, Houghton concludes, “cannot support such arguments” (Houghton 2007, 7). The growing divide in evangelical circles over environmental issues and global warming revolves most immediately around the complex question of how best to address global poverty. At another, deeper level, however, the debate stems from basic theological disagreements over what the proper Christian relationship should be to wealth and the created order. Like the New Monastics, Houghton questions the pursuit of wealth endorsed by Prosperity Theology and the Cornwall Alliance. Pointing out the “most condemning of world statistics” which show that the “flow of wealth in the world is from the poor to the rich,” Houghton endorses instead a new attitude of sharing and self-sacrifice on the part of wealthy nations, calling on the words of Jesus in Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded” (Houghton 2007,15). In the same vein, the Evangelical Environmental Network’s (EEN’s) 1994 declaration On the Care of Creation affirms: “We recall Jesus’ words that our lives do not consist in the abundance of our possessions, and therefore we urge followers of Jesus to resist the allure of wastefulness and overconsumption by making personal lifestyle choices that express humility, forbearance, self-restraint, and frugality.” Signed by such evangelical luminaries as activist Jim Wallis, and Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, among many others, the EEN’s creation care declaration develops an understanding of stewardship that contrasts strikingly with the dominion theology of “forceful rule” that Beisner upholds (Moyers 2006). These green evangelicals, citing many of the same biblical passages as Beisner, find a God who “declares all creation ‘good’ ” (Genesis 1:31); promises care in a covenant with all creatures (Genesis 9:9–17); [and] delights in creatures which have no human apparent usefulness (Job 39–41).” The EEN signatories, citing Romans 8 and repenting the environmental devastation humans have caused, see not a cursed creation requiring deliverance by human effort, but a

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology |

creation suffering from the consequences of human sin and in need of healing through Christ. As expressed by Houghton, human devastation of the environment is the result of the broken relationship with God described in Genesis 3, and the redemption of the creation promised in Romans 8:20–22 requires humans to serve creation as “responsible and just stewards” (Houghton 2007, 13). In contrast to Beisner’s unqualified endorsement of the Genesis mandate to be “fruitful and multiply,” Houghton echoes the EEN declaration, which recognizes the connection between environmental degradation and human overpopulation: “Our responsibility is not only to bear and nurture children, but to nurture their home on earth” (Houghton 2007). In view of the significant political power evangelicals hold in the United States, the healing of the earth and natural world must go hand-in-hand with the healing of the broken relationships both within and beyond evangelical circles. See also Apocalypticism and Nuclear War; Gospel of Prosperity. Further Reading: Albanese, C. America: Religions and Religion. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007; Beisner, E. C., P. K. Driessen, R. McKitrick and R. W. Spencer. “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming.” The Cornwall Alliance. 2006. Available at: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/ articles/read/call-to-truth/; Beisner, E. Calvin. “Biblical Principles for Environmental Stewardship.” In An Examination of the Scientific, Ethical and Theological Implications of Climate Policy, by Roy W.Spencer, Paul K. Driessen and E. Calvin Beisner. Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. 2005. Available at: http://www.interfaithstewardship.org; Berkowitz, Bill. “The Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship.” Z Mag, July 2000. Available at: http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/july00berkowitz.htm; Berkowitz, Bill. “The Evangelical Climate Initiative: A Small Crack in the Conservative Movement.” Media Transparency, February 22, 2006. Available at: http://www.mediatransparency. org/storyprinterfriendly.php?storyID=112; Claiborne, Shane. “Downward Mobility in an Upscale World.” The Other Side, November 1, 2000. Reprinted by author permission. January 27, 2008.Available at: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/ newmonastics/claiborne_downwardmobility.shtml; “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.” Statement of the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Available at: http://www. christiansandclimate.org/statement (accessed June 6, 2007); “Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship.” Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Available at: http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/the-cornwall-declarationon-environmental-stewardship (accessed June 6, 2007); Flannery, T. The Weather Makers: How Man is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth. New York: Grove Press, 2006; Houghton, John. “Global Warming, Climate Change and Sustainability: Challenge to Scientists, Policy Makers and Christians.” The John Ray Initiative, Briefing Paper 14, 2007.Available at: http://www.jri.org.uk/brief/index.htm; Moyers, Bill. Moyers on America: Is God Green? PBS, 2006. DVD; “On the Care of Creation: An Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation.” Evangelical Environmental Network, 1993–2008. Available at: http://www.creationcare.org/resources/declaration.php (accessed June 20, 2007); Van Biema, David, and Jeff Chu. “Does God Want you to be Rich?” Time, September 10, 2006. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ article/0,9171,1533448,00.html.

Stephen Potthof

223

224

|

Gospel of Prosperity

GOSPEL OF PROSPERITY There has always been a side to American social history and the national self-image that celebrates ambition. Americans, on the whole, admire perseverance in developing and building family farms or family businesses. Americans also admire success. The desire to improve one’s life is usually seen as a positive personal drive that encourages hard work, and offers rewards for that hard work. But some would argue that what began in American history as a healthy drive for development that benefits many (and not just a few), has become, in more recent decades, a debate on the dangers that a healthy “ambition” can be replaced by a very negative “greed.” This becomes even more serious in the American context, when not only has this positive ambition become negative, selfish greed, but is defended on the basis of religious ideas. Can religion be understood to support greed? In the late twentieth century, and into the twenty-first century, an important movement began within largely American Christianity. Although a number of different versions are discernable, in general these ideas can be called the Gospel of Prosperity. This idea is the belief that God wants us to be rich and healthy. It is promoted by many conservative Christian evangelists, especially television evangelists. This kind of message appeals to people from various incomes. A Gospel of Prosperity especially confirms to the wealthy that their wealth is proof that God loves them, that it is okay to pursue wealth, and even to make it a top priority in one’s life. For the poor, it appeals because it may seem like a way out of poverty. Like Santa Claus, the Gospel of Prosperity is a comfort, however misplaced, for the poor. After all, even when poor children are good, Santa and his gifts may not come for them if the family simply cannot afford it. Likewise, if wealth does not come to poor believers, then God must not love them, or they do not love God enough. It is a downward spiral. Critics of the Gospel of Prosperity often contrast it against a more realistic and more positive message, which they call the Gospel of Abundance. The ideas around the Gospel of Abundance, urge us to share our many blessings. Abundance is ultimately based on the people being willing to share, on building community, and on God’s grace. Prosperity is based ultimately on the self, meand-Jesus, which is typical of conservative, corporate-driven theology. Many television evangelists have themselves become rich preaching the Gospel of Prosperity, because it is so appealing that it leads their followers to support them, to send money to their programs, and generally to keep the message coming. The Gospel of Prosperity feeds directly into the worst parts of the American Dream, with its focus on possessions as signs of success. It can lead to serious debt, and even bankruptcy. It disregards Care of Creation. THE PREACHERS The Gospel of Prosperity is part of the fastest growing segment of Christianity today—the Word-Faith Movement, also known as the Positive Confession

Gospel of Prosperity | 225

or simply Faith movement. Its growth is at least partially due to the massive amounts of money the leaders are able to extract from the faithful. This influx of cash allows for huge buildings and extensive ministries, and more importantly, wide exposure on television, which translates into further numerical growth. Not only do many Word-Faith preachers broadcast their services and campaigns, but Word-Faith adherents, such as Paul and Jan Crouch, own the largest Christian-based television network in the world. The Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), founded by the Crouches, with an estimated net worth of approximately $600 million dollars, is capable of televising all over the world. It is important that one does not confuse TBN with the Trinity Foundation, which produces The Wittenberg Door, an irreverent, insightful religious magazine highly critical of televangelists. The Trinity Foundation Inc. (www.Trini tyFI.org) exists primarily to feed and help the homeless. Because of the negative impact, especially on the poor, by the adherents of the Gospel of Prosperity, the Trinity Foundation investigates and exposes televangelists through their web site, videos and publications. The prosperity gospel is gaining adherents outside the United States, in Latin America (especially Mexico), Africa and Asia (especially Korea). Well-known personalities within the movement include Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Robert Tilton, Paul Yonggi Cho, Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey, Frederick K. C. Price, John Avanzini, Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle, Morris Cerullo and, of course, Paul and Jan Crouch. A newer star on the rise in the world of positive motivational Christianity is Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, whose motto is “Discover the Champion in You.” Osteen made the list of the Top 20 Influencers of the Pentecostal/charismatic community in the Jan/Feb 2003 issue of Ministries Today magazine, along with other notables, such as Tommy Tenney, C. Peter Wagner, and Joyce Meyer. Elwood “Woody” Rieke, a long-standing hunger activist, who is a retired Lutheran pastor (ELCA) living in LaCrescent, Minnesota, shares the following insights about how the Bible is being used to support a Gospel of Prosperity: I would call it cheap grace as Luther and Bonhoeffer did. You can always pick and choose the verses you may select from your Bible, you can make the Bible say what you want it to. Or, if a person only reads those portions of the Scriptures which make you feel comfortable or affirmed, you could easily come to believe in such a “Gospel of Prosperity.” When you read the Gospel accounts and certain parts of the Apostle Paul’s writings, you come to see a God in Jesus the Christ who has a preferential treatment for the poor and the marginalized. Our culture is caught up in a God of power and/or prosperity. It is not the God shown in II Cor. 12:8–9, “My grace is sufficient for you for my power is made known in weakness.” If a person believes in such a “Gospel of Prosperity,” then the more you spend (whether you need it or not), you have sold your soul to “the company store.” Jesus says in Matthew 6:19–20, “Do not store up

226

|

Gospel of Prosperity

for yourselves treasures on Earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven . . . For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Someone has said, “People of privilege are those (to use a baseball analogy) who have been born on third base but they feel as if they have hit a triple.” Reverend Rieke also cites the work of another important modern theologian, Douglas John Hall, who has asked pointedly: “Is it Christianity that has taught us to love consumption and overabundance and waste? Is there some link between our trust in God and our astonishing prosperity, our being ‘First,’ our superpower-dom? Many avowed Christians think so, and they can count upon a whole hoary tradition of . . . ethics to back up their argument. But can we, who have at least some niggling consciousness of the victims that have been created by our abundance, continue to draw upon that argument? Can we, who have had to face the racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and other once-hidden realities of our ‘Christian’ culture, still avoid the crisis that ‘begins with the household of God’ (I Peter 4:17)?” (Hall 2003). Douglas John Hall contrasts a theology of glory with a theology of the cross. (These are the phrases first used by Luther and then by Bonhoeffer.) Hall argues that a theology of glory can really be equated with the modern term triumphalism. The theology of the cross is “first of all a statement about God, and what it says about God is not that God thinks humankind so wretched that it deserves death and hell, but that God thinks humankind and the whole creation so good, so beautiful, so precious in its intention and in potentiality, that its actualization, its fulfillment, in redemption is worth dying for” (Hall 2003). Many modern theologians have had their lives impacted by direct experiences in the developing world. Reverend Rieke speaks of his experience in Ethiopia: Our 12-person delegation had been divided up into three groups of four each and we were attending what was called a “youth conference” (actually people about 16–30 years old) out in the bush. When the moderator asked if there were any questions anyone wanted to ask of the four of us, a young man stood up and said, “How do you expect us to believe in this God you talk about when we have experienced so much death and disease and we have so little money on which to live?” (The average income of an Ethiopian is $100 per year. Two congregations in this area where the conference was being held had gone through the previous year having lost 272 people to malaria.) This question was directed to me. I responded, “Not for one minute do I say that I, a person coming from the United States, can really understand what you have gone through, but I do know I believe in a God who in the person of Jesus hung on a cross and before he died, he cried out, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken (abandoned) me?’ If my God has so come down and identified with me and he has experienced this kind of abandonment, I believe that this God will never leave me

Gospel of Prosperity | 227

nor forsake me.” I hope I spoke to this man’s heart but I can only trust what I said somehow got through to him. All of our consumption only continues to increase the tremendous divide that exists between the rich and the poor in our world. The poor feel it every day. The rich often are insensitive to the reality. AN ALTERNATIVE: LIVING MORE WITH LESS OR “VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY” The alternative to the Gospel of Prosperity is the movement of modern Christians who are attempting to reduce their consumption in the name of their religious commitments—they would refer to it as voluntary simplicity. They would argue that Christian “discipleship” means that they should seek to live in voluntary simplicity because they would argue that it is the way of Jesus. For American Christians who attempt to live more simply, they point out that for them it is a voluntary choice only because North Americans have a choice to live within their means and within the carrying-capacity of the Earth. However, two-thirds of the world’s people live simply involuntarily. They have no choice. Living simply goes far beyond frugality. It is not just about pinching pennies. Voluntary simplicity is a total lifestyle that puts Care of Creation above tribalism or nationalism, that seeks peace and justice, that is generous beyond tithing, and that would rather give money to worthwhile causes than to have it collected as taxes and spent on militarism. Voluntary simplicity works to build community and strong family bonds through volunteerism, not through status. Finally, voluntary simplicity is based on the life of Jesus. Three Levels of Simplicity Advocates of voluntary simplicity or living more with less argue that this lifestyle choice is about a life of integrity. It works on three levels. First, the personal—examine one’s own and one’s family purchasing and consuming decisions. This often includes eating organically, locally grown food, or using public transportation, or walking and biking, and by doing all we can to keep our water and air clean by using alternative energy, or using as little natural gas and conventionally produced electricity as possible. This can include using as little fresh water as possible; for example, collecting rain water and using it to water our yards, and even to flush our toilets! Second, is the interpersonal, sharing: charity—giving as much time and money to needy people and worthwhile causes and spending a whole lot less on ourselves, especially at Christmas. Over 3000 verses in the Bible deal with the poor. Is God showing us a priority? According to Jim Wallis, author of God’s Politics (2005), this topic is second only to idolatry in the Bible. Idolatry is about putting other things before God— including our possessions, our stuff. Sharing also includes giving to the privileged needy; North Americans who do not realize, or will not accept the fact that a lifestyle of excess has a negative

228

|

Gospel of Prosperity

impact on people around the globe. While causing the most trouble, they can do the most good. So those who believe in voluntary simplicity work to influence the decisions of the privileged needy. Charity is meeting people’s short term, immediate needs. The third level is justice, working to change systems, primarily corporations and governments that are not working for the benefit of the Earth and its creatures—people, plants and animals. This can include many techniques—positive and negative letter writing, protests, stockholder actions, boycotts, and so on. All three levels are vital. Voluntary simplicity means one can work on all three levels at once. Believers do not have to be personally perfect before they speak up at a meeting. FIVE LIFE STANDARDS OF VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY The five life standards of voluntary simplicity are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Do justice Learn from the world community Cherish the natural order (Care for Creation) Nurture people (not things) Nonconform freely

Living More with Less is meant to bring a life of joy to its practitioners, not of deprivation. To get the burden of stuff off of their backs, to get free of the distractions of collecting, maintaining and securing stuff, is viewed as a relief, freeing believers to serve God and their worldwide neighbors. It is viewed as a true and viable alternative to the Gospel of Prosperity. CONCLUSION In modern American Christian debate, the economic and religious conflicts between Christian messages of Prosperity on the one hand, and the Simple Life on the other hand—interpret the Christian message radically differently. On the one side, prosperity messages appeal on the positive side to hope, but on the negative side, often ground that hope in consumerism and interpreting consumption as “God’s gifts.” It is a message all too easy to believe when one is raised in a prosperous economy and prosperous country. While personal ambition to improve may well drive industrious development and advancement, the negative side is that it can lead to over-consumption, greed, and distortion of the meaning of sharing. The message of simplicity, on the other hand, is a message that suggests that Christians need to remind themselves that they are citizens of the world—and the world does not share its resources equally at the present time. While it may be impossible for there to ever be total equality of economic development, this ought not to be used as an excuse not to seek a more equal distribution of economic benefits and opportunities and resources. The advocates of Simplicity argue that there may be a responsibility on the part of Christians in wealthier

Graphic Arts |

nations like America voluntarily to give up their over-consumption in hopes that other peoples in the world may be able to lift out of serious poverty, but also to live their own lives free of greed, status-seeking, and unhealthy consumption. See also Global Warming and Prosperity Theology. Further Reading: “Africans Warn ‘False Gospel of Prosperity’ May Displace Churches.” Available at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/124/54.0.html; Battjes, Christine. The Good Life Curriculum. Sioux City, IA: Alternatives for Simple Living, 2005; “The Anointed Dollar: Creflo Dollar’s Great Green Gospel of Prosperity.” Available at: http://www.homestead.com/dclwolf/dollah.html (accessed February 17, 2005); “Can You Take the Prosperity Gospel to the Bank?” Available at: http://www.tenth.org/qbox/ qb_020804.htm; “Faith and Values: The problem with this ‘Gospel of Prosperity’ is that it defines our faith in God by the possessions we have.” Available at: http://www. faithandvalues.com/channels/knees_excerpt.asp; Friesen, Delores. “Living More with Less Study/Action Guide.” Sioux City, IA: Alternatives for Simple Living, 1999; Hall, Douglas John. The Cross in Our Context: Jesus and the Suffering World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003; “Joyce Meyer’s Prosperity Gospel.” Available at: http://www.apol ogeticsindex.org/m26ad.html; http://www.MinistryWatch.org; Longacre, Doris Janzen. Living More with Less. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1980; “Prosperity and Healing: Emergence and Explanation.” Available at: http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/prosper ity.htm; Simple Living Struggles and Solutions. 2007. Available at: http://www.SimpleLiv ing.org/Volunteers/Activities/Simple Living 101. DVD and download; $imply Enough: Straight Talk from Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne on Simple, Just Living. DVD, 71+ min., plus study/action guide. Sergeant Bluff, IA: Alternatives for Simple Living, 2007; “The Martin Marty Center: Sightings: Two traditions of black ministry, liberation theology and prosperity gospel, have very different notions of Christ and therefore exert different influences.” Available at: http://www.marty-center.uchicago.edu/ sightings/archive_2004/1014.shtml. “The prosperity gospel—‘name it and claim it’ theology.” Available at: http://www.rickross.com/reference/tv_preachers/tv_preachers4. html; “The Prosperity Gospel. TBN’s Promise: Send Money and See Riches.” Available at: http://www.deceptioninthe church.com/theprosperitygospel2.html; “The Reproach of the Solemn Assembly.” Available at: http://www.hyperfaith.bun.com/wilkerson.htm; “Trinity Broadcasting Network: The Gospel of Prosperity.” Available at: http://www. apologeticsindex.org/t27aa.html; Wilkerson, David. “The Prosperity Gospel: Pastor’s Empire Built on Acts of Faith and Cash.” Available at: http://www.trinityfi.org/press/ latimes04.html.

Gerald Iversen GRAPHIC ARTS Recent international scandals involving graphic artists have raised awareness on the explosive ramifications of blasphemy in the arts. From time immemorial, artists have clashed with religious authorities seeking to regulate their expressions. The modern advent of the separation of religion and the state, and the accompanying freedom of expression, has not lessened those confrontations with religious communities. The power of religion and religious symbolism makes religion a popular subject for artistic use; but the sacredness of those beliefs, images and practices makes their depiction of intense interest to

229

230

|

Graphic Arts

adherents. Thus, it is inevitable that the question of blasphemy will collide with the personal and legal limits of free expression. Contemporary graphic artists reach people instantly across the globe, making their work potentially explosive. Thus, the mass dissemination of graphic images through graphic arts and design has brought the question to the forefront, particularly in the face of high profile controversies that are no longer isolated, local events, but can become major international crises.

TIMELINE 1838—An avowed pantheist and political reformer, Abner Kneeland is convicted of blasphemy in Massachusetts. He serves 60 days in prison. 1921—George Grosz is fined for insulting the army in his portfolio, Gott mit uns (God with us). 1923—Grosz is fined for “offending public morals” in his collection, Ecce Homo. 1928—Grosz is fined and convicted for blasphemy in his series, Hintergrund (Background). He is later exonerated. 1989—A controversy over federal funding of the arts in the United States erupts over Andres Serrano’s photograph, Piss Christ, which depicts a crucifix in urine. 1994—Mike Diana is convicted of obscenity for his zine Boiled Angel, which explicitly depicts gory and taboo sexual and religious images. 2001—Gerhard Haderer publishes Das Leben des Jesus (The Life of Jesus). 2004—Haderer is convicted of blasphemy in Greece. His conviction is overturned later that year. Theo van Gogh is murdered for his film about violence against Muslim women, Submission. A public outcry occurs over refrigerator magnets called Jesus Dress Up, where a crucified Jesus magnet doll in “tighty-whities” can be dressed up in, among other things, a dress, hula skirt, and devil outfit. Originally created by graphic artist Normal Bob Smith, it became an Internet phenomenon that was eventually sold in the store, Urban Outfitters. After someone saw the doll in Urban Outfitters, a letter-writing campaign was started. The campaign succeeded in forcing Urban Outfitters to stop selling the magnets. 2005—Jyllands-Posten publishes Muhammeds ansigt (Muhammad’s face). Fashion designers Marithé and François Girbaud print an advertising poster parodying Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper. The French Catholic Church sues the designers and succeeds in having the ad banned in France. It is also banned in Italy. 2006—Libya and Syria close their embassies in Denmark. Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria are set on fire in protests over the Danish cartoons. Over 139 people die. Jyllands-Posten wins their blasphemy suit.

Graphic Arts |

THE GRAPHIC ARTS The term, graphic arts, most specifically and technically refers to the visual arts of drawing and the many processes of printmaking. Drawing is the fine art of inscribing on a two-dimensional medium with any number of instruments, such as pencil, pen, chalk, pastels, or charcoal. Printmaking is a visual art that involves transferring an image onto a surface (like paper or fabric) from an original piece of art created on metal, stone, wood or other material. Examples of printmaking are engraving, etching, woodblocking, lithography, and silkscreening. Thus, the graphic arts depend on the production of lines and impressions, rather than on colors, in the creation of images. In contemporary usage, graphic arts has come to have a much broader meaning that encompasses a variety of arts, crafts, and design products in the printmaking industry and other industries that create visual images. As a result, graphic art has expanded into commercial and digital realms, and is often closely associated with graphic design. BLASPHEMY AND THE LAW The word blasphemy comes from Greek, meaning contemptuous speech or harmful speech. It has come to mean harmful speech specifically about something considered sacred: God, the divine, or religion. This extends to any kind of expression, such as depicting derisive images of Muhammad, as in the Danish cartoon controversy, or in portraying the life of Jesus in ways offensive to Christians, as in Gerhard Haderer’s The Life of Christ. Religious traditions themselves may have specific religious laws or pronouncements against blasphemy. In the Jewish book of Leviticus, the punishment for blaspheming the name of God is death (24:16). Moreover, the prescription against idols in Exodus (20:4) has often been interpreted in Judaism as a prohibition against representing the divine in any form. Indeed, some Christians throughout history have similarly understood this commandment. In the Christian books of Luke (12:10) and Mark (3:29), blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is deemed unforgivable. In Islam, any expression that belittles God, the Qur’an, the prophets, or the laws and practices of Islam, constitutes blasphemy. Although idolatry is strenuously targeted in the Qur’an, there is no direct condemnation of images as blasphemy. Nevertheless, in the Hadith (the sayings and stories about Muhammad), it is said that those who create images will be punished on the day of resurrection. Nations, even secular ones that maintain a separation of religion and the state, also sometimes have laws concerning blasphemy. Some countries have modified or repealed their blasphemy laws; however, many still possess them (though they are rarely enforced). Blasphemy laws are technically “on the books” in many countries, including Denmark, Germany, Greece, Iran, The Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Although the United States does not have any federal blasphemy laws, many states have historically had them, and some still do. The Massachusetts blasphemy law states:

231

232

|

Graphic Arts

Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior. (Chapter 272, Section 36) The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland, in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kneeland (1838). However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that the New York blasphemy statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it limited freedom of speech (Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson). It is therefore unlikely that state blasphemy laws could be enforced today, due to the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), which (in part) bars states from making or enforcing laws that violate the basic constitutional rights of citizens. This includes the guaranteed freedom of speech outlined in the First Amendment. GEORGE GROSZ George Grosz (1893–1959), a painter and graphic artist, is best known for his satirical drawings of 1920s Berlin. Censored multiple times by the government, and even put on trial and convicted for blasphemy, Grosz is a perfect example of controversy in the graphic arts. In 1921, Grosz was accused of insulting the army and fined for his collection, Gott mit uns (God with Us), which satirized German military, religion, and society. He was again fined in 1923 for “offending public morals” because of his portfolio, entitled Ecce Homo. The prints were confiscated. Finally, in 1928, Grosz was arrested and put on trial for blasphemy. The series, called Hintergrund, was published from backgrounds Grosz had created for a satirical play. Targeting German society, government, church and war, several pieces were particularly controversial and led to Grosz’s arrest. One, called Christ in a Gas Mask, depicted Jesus crucified, wearing a gas mask and army boots, and holding a cross. The inscription stated: “Shut up and Obey.” Many of his prints and plates were destroyed, including Christ in a Gas Mask. Grosz was found guilty, but was later exonerated. Although Grosz was a favorite target of the government, he did not inspire great protest among the populace. Moreover, the political leanings of Grosz colored the government’s prosecution, illustrating the closely entwined nature of artistic expression, religion, and the state. GERHARD HADERER Gerard Haderer (b. 1951) is an Austrian illustrator and cartoonist. In 2001, Haderer published Das Leben des Jesus (The Life of Jesus), a comic book where

Graphic Arts |

Jesus was depicted as a pot-smoking, naked surfer, and drinking buddy to Jimi Hendrix. Haderer’s book was meant to be a lighthearted, albeit irreverent, take on the life of Jesus. However, Cardinal Schönborn of Austria, and many others, protested its publication. The controversy became so great that the book was banned in Greece. Although he was not a citizen, nor did he live in the country, Haderer was tried and convicted (in his absence) of “malicious public blasphemy,” and received a six-month suspended jail term. However, the court of appeals eventually overturned the ruling and exonerated Haderer. In spite of the protests, there was not overwhelming support for this censorship of Haderer’s work. Indeed, many spoke out against Haderer’s prosecution, believing he was unfairly targeted by a government unduly influenced by religious authorities. Over a thousand artists across the globe signed a petition in support of Haderer and the right of free expression for artists. THE DANISH CARTOON CONTROVERSY This controversy must be understood in the wider context of European debate on censorship and Islam. In 2004, a short film was released in the Netherlands called Submission. It focused on violence against Muslim women in their own communities. Accused of blasphemy, both the director, Theo van Gogh, and the writer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, received death threats after the film’s release. Van Gogh was subsequently murdered on his way to work. Later, on September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper, Politiken, published an article that focused on author Kare Bluitgen’s inability to find illustrators for his children’s book on the life of Muhammad. Three illustrators turned him down: one cited the murder of van Gogh and another appealed to an attack on a lecturer at the University of Copenhagen who had read the Qur’an to non-Muslims. Bluitgen eventually found an illustrator, who agreed only on the condition of anonymity. This article on the fear of reprisals led to a public debate in Denmark about the fear of artists and others to critique Islam. On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, published a group of twelve cartoons and caricatures, titled Muhammeds ansigt (Muhammad’s face). In the editorial accompanying the cartoons, the paper argued that the demand by some Muslims for non-Muslims to self-censor on matters related to Islam ran counter to a secular democracy and the freedom of speech. Thus, through their editorial cartoon spread, they hoped to contribute to the ongoing debate in Denmark on the critique of Islam and self-censorship. Some of the cartoons portrayed Muhammad in rather violent fashion. For example, one depicted Muhammad wearing a lit bomb as a turban. The Muslim creed was written on the bomb. The publication of the cartoons created an immediate controversy in Denmark. Danish imams and ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries requested a meeting with the prime minister. The prime minister, however, refused a meeting, and defended the cartoons on the grounds of freedom of expression and the press. Denmark’s blasphemy law (section 140) prohibits disturbing the peace by public displays of insult against lawful religious communities. Moreover, section

233

234

|

Graphic Arts

266b prohibits insult or threat of persons due to race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Citing these two criminal codes, several Muslim organizations filed a complaint against Jyllands-Posten on October 27, 2005. The case was dismissed in January 2006, however, on the basis of the freedom of the press to editorialize on matters of public interest. Many Danish Muslims felt that the publication of the cartoons was not an isolated, neutral event that sought merely to open up public conversation. It seemed rather to be a part of a wider pattern of discrimination and Islamophobia. In the months that followed, more pictures appeared in the paper, Weekendavisen. Hate mail was sent to some Danish Muslims. At the time, the controversy received limited international coverage. However, an Egyptian paper, El Fagr, published six of them in October of 2005, denouncing the cartoons. Over the next year, protests grew and papers around the globe had to decide whether or not to publish the pictures. Most papers in the United Sates and Britain chose not to publish them. Over 139 people were killed in protests. Several embassies were closed or set on fire. Although pictorial representations, particularly of Muhammad, are seen in some traditions of Islam as idolatry, it was the violent or derogatory nature of some of them that caused the bigger problem for most Muslims. Insulting Muhammad, by portraying him as a suicide bomber, for example, is tantamount to blasphemy. Indeed, what this controversy makes clear are the very real sociopolitical ramifications of blasphemy in the arts. Irreverent satirical cartoons are not just about making an artistic or religious statement. They are also about the religious persons who find meaning and value in those images: they are also about insulting Muslim communities and sometimes threatening the very real well-being of those communities. If artists feel their right of free expression is limited in critiquing Islam, many Muslims feel their civil rights are limited in the war against terrorism. Public “blasphemous” images, then, contribute to and confirm this feeling of discrimination. “Blasphemous” depictions therefore hit close to the religious community in question and can touch raw nerves if the images used by graphic artists deal with problems or issues that the community is currently dealing with. BLASPHEMY VERSUS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION In the Danish cartoon controversy, Denmark affirmed both the legality of the blasphemy law, and yet resolutely stood on the side of freedom of expression. Nevertheless, the controversy spiraled out of control, as Danish Muslims and Muslims around the world—many of whom indeed affirmed their commitment to the freedom of expression—felt targeted by a powerful majority. Danish law makes clear that the freedom of expression is not absolute. The same is true in the United States, where threatening, slanderous, or obscene behavior is not considered to be protected speech. This became evident in the debates over censorship and funding by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), in the 1980s and early 1990s, when “blasphemous” art was a smaller part of a larger conflict over censorship, the arts, and the fear of moral decay

Graphic Arts |

in American society. Two artists to receive a lot of attention were Andres Serrano, infamous for his photograph depicting a crucifix in urine called Piss Christ (1989), and Robert Mapplethorpe, whose homoerotic, sadomasochistic, and interracial photographs caused an uproar over “public decency.” In 1990, the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, and its director, David Barrie, were brought up on obscenity charges for exhibiting Mapplethorpe’s photographs (Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center, 1990). Although Barrie and the center were acquitted, the case illustrated a real concern at that time to protect the public against indecency and obscenity. That same year, the United States Congress agreed to continue funding the NEA, but required the NEA to consider “general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public” in awarding grants (National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, amended 1990). Although the constitutionality of this was challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that decency could indeed be considered in funding grant applications (National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 1998). Thus, although blasphemy statutes are unlikely to be enforced in the United States, “blasphemous” art can still be denied funding on the grounds of indecency or disrespect for diverse public beliefs. It is also conceivable that “blasphemous” art could be subject to criminal charges, if deemed obscene. Thus, graphic artist Mike Diana (b. 1969) was convicted on charges of obscenity by a Florida Court in 1994 for Boiled Angel, a magazine of drawings that depicts sex, violence, religion, and society through explicit images of rape, gory sexual dismembering, and pedophile priests. U.S. controversies in “blasphemous” art and design, however, often take place in the commercial, rather than legal, domain, where boycotts, street protests, or letter-writing campaigns attempt to have the offensive work removed from sale or display, or at least to damage the offending parties economically. One conflict involving the graphic arts is of particular note for its successful commercial protest campaign. In 2004, a controversy erupted when attention was brought to a set of Jesus magnets sold by the clothing—and other merchandise—store, Urban Outfitters. The magnets were created by graphic artist, Normal Bob Smith, and were originally available on the Internet as an on-line dress up game. On this site, there was a crucified Jesus in “tighty-whitie” underwear, able to be dressed by dragging and dropping on his form various outfits and accessories, such as a propeller beanie hat, snorkel gear, bunny slippers, and a devil outfit. The site became quite popular, and Smith created a magnet version for sale. Urban Outfitters picked them up and began selling Jesus Dress Up refrigerator magnets. After someone saw the magnets in the store and notified the press, a widespread and organized letter-writing campaign was launched, successfully forcing Urban Outfitters to stop selling the magnets. Artistic expressions intentionally provoke in order to create an aesthetic experience. Visual images, particularly religious ones, are incredibly powerful, even in secular societies. This makes such images attractive for artists to use, regardless of their religious beliefs. And yet, religious images, symbols, and beliefs are deeply enmeshed in religious traditions and communities. It is therefore unsurprising that religious groups will be invested in how their beliefs, practices

235

236

|

Graphic Arts

and communities are portrayed. Therefore, the limits of free expression are difficult to assess. When do irreverent cartoons, comics, drawings, or lithographs become “blasphemous,” “obscene,” or even dangerous to public order? Balancing artists’ rights of free expression with religious communities’ welfare is a complicated process. On a personal, artistic level, recent controversies in the graphic arts raise the question of what responsibility artists bear—if any—to those religious communities from which they draw their images. This is a question all artists must ask themselves, as controversies in the graphic arts illustrate that art does indeed have profound consequences for public life. “Blasphemous” art can be extremely effective in making a statement— whether it is a critique of German militarism, religious hypocrisy, or religious censorship. It can serve an important role in societies, raising essential questions for religious and nonreligious persons, such as: What is the relationship between religion and art? How should nonbelievers censor themselves when treating the religions? Graphic arts and designs today reach people globally through digital printing, marketing campaigns, and the Internet. This makes them particularly powerful as a tool of public communication and debate. This also makes them easy targets. See also Western Cinema; World Religion Aesthetics. Further Reading: Diver, Krysia. “Cartoonist faces Greek jail for blasphemy.” The Guardian, March 23, 2005. Available at: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,11711,1443908,00. html; Dubin, Steven C. Arresting images: Impolitic art and uncivil actions. London and New York: Routledge, 1992; DuBoff, Leonard D., Sherri Burr, and Michael D. Murray. Art Law: Cases and Materials. Buffalo: William S. Hein and Company, 2004; Flemming, Rose. “Muhammeds ansigt.” Jyllands-Posten, September 30, 2005; Flemming, Rose. “Why I published those cartoons.” Washington Post, February 19, 2006. Available at: http:// www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499. html; Heins, Marjorie. Sex, sin, and blasphemy: A guide to America’s censorship wars. New York: The New Press, 1993; Heller, Steven. The graphic design reader. New York: Allworth Press, 2002; Heller, Steven. Design literacy: Understanding graphic design. 2nd ed. New York: Allworth Press, 2004; Hollis, Richard. Graphic design: A concise history. Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Thames and Hudson, Inc., 2001; Kammen, Michael. Visual shock: A history of art controversies in American culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf; Massachusetts General Laws. Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy. 2006. Available at: http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272–36.htm; Plate, S. Brent. Blasphemy: Art that offends. London: Black Dog Publishing, 2006; Tiefenbrun, Susan, ed. Law and the Arts (Contributions in Legal Studies). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999; Wallis, Brian, Marianne Weems, and Philip Yenawine, eds. Art matters: How the culture wars changed America. New York and London: New York University Press, 1999.

Tracy Sayuki Tiemeier

BATTLEGROUND RELIGION VOLUME 2 (H–Z)

Edited by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher

GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut • London

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Battleground religion / edited by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–313–34098–7 (set: alk. paper) ISBN 978–0–313–34099–4 (vol. 1: alk. paper) ISBN 978–0–313–34100–7 (vol. 2: alk. paper) 1. Religion and sociology. I. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. BL60.B315 2009 200—dc22 2008038760 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2009 by Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2008038760 ISBN: 978–0-313–34098–7 (set) 978–0-313–34099–4 (vol. 1) 978–0-313–34100–7 (vol. 2) First published in 2009 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.greenwood.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS Guide to Related Topics Series Foreword Introduction

ix xiii xv

Entries: Abortion

1

Addiction and Recovery

10

AIDS

17

Aliens

23

Amish

30

Animal Sacrifice

37

Animation as a New Medium

44

Anti-Catholicism and American Politics

49

Apocalypticism and Nuclear War

54

Bible and Poverty

63

Birth Control and Family Planning

69

Capital Punishment

77

Capitalism and Socialism

83

v

vi

|

Contents

Christian Zionism

89

Civil Disobedience

97

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America

104

Cloning

114

Cosmology

119

“Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism

127

Divorce

133

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

141

Evangelical Christianity in America

153

Evangelical Men’s Movements

160

Evangelicals and Environmentalism

167

Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools

174

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies

183

Female Subordination in Christian Thought

191

Gambling and the Religious Conscience

199

Genetic Research

206

Genocide

211

Global Warming and Prosperity Theology

217

Gospel of Prosperity

224

Graphic Arts

229

Health Reform Movements

237

Higher Intelligence Animals

244

Homeschooling

252

Homosexuality

258

Hucksterism and Religious Scandals

267

Hutterites: Communal Living versus Individual Freedom

274

Immigration

283

Islamic Nationalism

291

Jailhouse Conversions

299

Just War

305

Liberation Theology

311

Contents | vii

Marketing Religion

319

Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy

325

Muslim Minorities in the West

332

Nation of Islam

341

Nationalism, Militarism, and Religion

347

Native American Religious Freedom

353

Neuroethics

358

New Religions as Growth Industry

365

Organ Transplants

373

Personal Pacifism versus Political Nonviolence

379

Prayer in Public Schools

386

Prime Time Religion

392

Religious Conversion

399

Religious Diplomacy

405

Religious Publishing

411

Religious Symbols on Government Property

417

Right-Wing Extremism

425

Rock Music and Christian Ethics

432

Same-Sex Marriage

439

Sanctuary Movement

445

School Funding

451

Science Fiction

458

Separation of Church and State

463

Terrorism

471

Universal Health Care as Religious Ethical Issue

479

Vegetarianism as Religious Witness

485

Western Cinema

489

World Religion Aesthetics

497

Bibliography

503

About the Editor and Contributors

505

Index

511

This page intentionally left blank

GUIDE TO RELATED TOPICS art Animation as a New Medium Graphic Arts Prime Time Religion Science Fiction Western Cinema World Religion Aesthetics

culture Animal Sacrifice Muslim Minorities in the West Prime Time Religion Western Cinema

economics and business Bible and Poverty Capitalism and Socialism Gambling and the Religious Conscience Immigration Marketing Religion Prime Time Religion Religious Publishing Rock Music and Christian Ethics Sanctuary Movement

ix

x

|

Guide to Related Topics

extremism Apocalypticism and Nuclear War “Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism Female Subordination in Christian Thought Gospel of Prosperity Hucksterism and Religious Scandals Nation of Islam New Religions as Growth Industry Right-Wing Extremism

personal behavior Abortion Addiction and Recovery AIDS Animal Sacrifice Birth Control and Family Planning Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America Divorce Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Gambling and the Religious Conscience Homosexuality Jailhouse Conversions Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy Same-Sex Marriage Vegetarianism as Religious Witness

politics and political ideas Bible and Poverty Capitalism and Socialism Christian Zionism Genocide Islamic Nationalism Just War Liberation Theology Nationalism, Militarism, and Religion Personal Pacifism versus Political Nonviolence Religious Conversion Religious Diplomacy Separation of Church and State Terrorism

religious impact on society Anti-Catholicism and American Politics Apocalypticism and Nuclear War Christian Zionism Civil Disobedience

Guide to Related Topics |

Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal in America Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Evangelical Christianity in America Evangelical Men’s Movements Evangelicals and Environmentalism Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools Female Subordination in Christian Thought Gospel of Prosperity Health Reform Movements Hucksterism and Religious Scandals Immigration Islamic Nationalism Jailhouse Conversions Liberation Theology Nationalism, Militarism, and Religion New Religions as Growth Industry Personal Pacifism versus Political Nonviolence Religious Symbols on Government Property Rock Music and Christian Ethics Sanctuary Movement School Funding Universal Health Care as Religious Ethical Issue

science Aliens Brain Research Cloning Cosmology “Deep Ecology” and Radical Environmentalism Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies Genetic Research Global Warming and Prosperity Theology Higher Intelligence Animals Neuroethics Organ Transplants Science Fiction

social policy Abortion Addiction and Recovery AIDS Bible and Poverty Birth Control and Family Planning Capital Punishment Evangelicals and Environmentalism

xi

xii

|

Guide to Related Topics

Faith-Based Health Care, Religious Morality, and Institutional Policies Female Subordination in Christian Thought Gambling and the Religious Conscience Genocide Health Reform Movements Homeschooling Homosexuality Immigration Jailhouse Conversions Just War Marriage, Sexuality, and Celibacy Native American Religious Freedom Prayer in Public Schools Religious Conversion Religious Diplomacy Same-Sex Marriage Sanctuary Movement School Funding Separation of Church and State Terrorism Universal Health Care as Religious Ethical Issue

subcultures Amish Animal Sacrifice Civil Disobedience Evangelical Christianity in America Evangelical Men’s Movements Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools Global Warming and Prosperity Theology Gospel of Prosperity Homeschooling Hutterites: Communal Living versus Individual Freedom Immigration Islamic Nationalism Muslim Minorities in the West Nation of Islam Native American Religious Freedom New Religions as Growth Industry Prayer in Public Schools Religious Symbols on Government Property Right-Wing Extremism Vegetarianism as Religious Witness

H HEALTH REFORM MOVEMENTS Since time immemorial, religion and medicine have been interrelated, religion often setting the parameters for what was considered to be appropriate in the treatment of illnesses of the human body and mi