# data[].attributes.body
Today's discussion gave me a lot of things to think about. Something that really stuck with me was our conversation about how we should spread Truth to those that don't agree with us.

There is such a fine line between speaking the Truth in love and driving people away from the good news of Christianity because of the way our actions and beliefs could be interpreted.

This article details how Jesus met spiritual needs during His ministry. Jesus was radical in His ministry and it's important to remember that we are called to live a life influenced by the Gospel. Something that my CHR 105 professor (shoutout to Greg Allgood -- what a hero) said in class this week was so thought-provoking.

"Imitating Jesus is not like impersonating Elvis."

How often do we fail to speak the Truth in love in a postmodern society? What can we do to change this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Needs," what does that mean? Look up the definition of the word and you will find a statement like this one: "Something that is necessary." As humans, what do we need? What is necessary? In the field of psychology a theory proposed by Abraham Maslow, and still espoused today, ranks our needs as human beings. Needs take the form of a pyramid and build from basic up to self-actualization. Basic human needs according to this ranking are food, shelter, friendship, love, and security. These basic needs must be met before a person can move upward. Why is that important? Why spend so much time on a dry psychological theory? Because Maslow (knowingly or unknowingly) synthesized the work of Jesus.

Jesus' ministry was comprehensive. Hand-in-hand with preaching the gospel He interacted with his community. He lived and worked among the "people". The Bible makes a point of emphasizing that Jesus did not shy away from interaction with people: tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, fishermen, children, temple leaders.

While mingling with people Jesus provided for a variety of needs. Let us take a look at this in the case of Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus was the chief tax collector in Jericho. As chief tax collector he was wealthy, so his financial needs were met. Jesus' interaction with Zacchaeus did not center on providing an economic solution. Instead it focused on another need. As a tax collector, Zacchaeus was someone "rejected" by society. According to E. G. White, Zacchaeus was "detested by his countrymen. His rank and wealth were the reward of his calling." Zacchaeus' need was to be accepted, to become part of his society.

Jesus met those needs by not only acknowledging Zacchaeus' presence but also by sharing a meal with him in his home. Emotionally, Jesus established a friendship; societally He created a way for Zacchaeus to become part of his community again. Jesus acted as a reconciler, a conduit for Zacchaeus. To become a part of, instead of standing apart, isolated.

We often think one dimensionally when considering what is a need. Often focusing on food, shelter, clothing-the main ideas covered by Maslow's hierarchy. These are tangible items that are easy to focus on. However, we often forget the intangible needs that are just as important, friendship and emotional connection and support. These are also basic needs that have to be met. When we are mingling with our community we have to pay attention to emotional needs, listening to that elderly neighbor whose friends have passed away or who no longer receives regular visits from family members. The nursing home visits that we take for granted can become ways to establish a relationship with someone, to provide that support system they may no longer have and that they long for.

Other examples of Jesus meeting needs are referenced in Mark 5:22-43. In the course of these verses Jesus ministers to physical needs, healing and life, for the woman with the "issue of blood" and Jairus' daughter, respectively. Both were unknown to Jesus, both sought Him out for healing and both trusted that He would address the problem they brought to Him. There was an immediate, pressing need in both situations. The woman suffered from her illness for years and this was her chance to get help. In her desperation she reached out and touched Jesus. She did not approach him, did not ask him for healing, instead she believed that some form of contact, no matter how small would be enough. Jairus' asked Jesus to heal his daughter, not knowing she was dead; his request was verbal but he did not expect Jesus to leave what he was doing and come with him. He believed that a form of contact, a prayer, no matter how small would be enough.

In both cases Jesus went beyond what was asked. He reached out, acknowledged each individual and created a relationship. As an extension of that He also provided the healing they requested. Again, what can we learn from this example; how can we meet physical needs? The first step is being aware that there is a need. In the instance of the woman, Jesus knew there was a need, He felt her touch. In response He became the source of healing, once again reconciling her back to her community through meeting a physical need.

Repeatedly we hear that the world is full of people who are suffering. Where do we begin? In our neighborhoods, work places, grocery stores, and areas where we gather. In making a connection with someone we build relationships and opportunities to meet a variety of needs.

The most difficult part in ministering to the needs of others may be reaching outside of ourselves. Again, this is modeled by Jesus. When he called Zacchaeus down from the tree it was in a public manner. He chose to share a meal with someone who was ostracized by his community without the hesitation that comes from considering what others might think or from the fear of losing His place in society. In order to minister to the needs of those around him Jesus put aside, in a very tangible way, considerations about reputation, status, and how he was viewed. He became part of his community.

Already, I can hear the question forming: Are you trying to say that Jesus conformed? No, the clear illustration is not one of conformity. It is one of compassion, of reaching out and providing while maintaining his role as Christ and savior. What does that mean for us? We are charged with following Jesus' example and ministering to the needs of those in our communities.

The Busy Life Bible, New International Version, Zondervan, 2006.

White, E. G., The Desire of Ages, 553

Need. Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/need. Accessed August 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Needs," what does that mean? Look up the definition of the word and you will find a statement like this one: "Something that is necessary." As humans, what do we need? What is necessary? In the field of psychology a theory proposed by Abraham Maslow, and still espoused today, ranks our needs as human beings.

# data[].attributes.body
One of my favorite things that we discussed this week in class was the relationship between power and knowledge. Lyotard's idea that the institutions and people in power control what knowledge the general public has access to was incredibly interesting but also a little concerning.

I think there's so much truth to this image! While this cartoon is humerous, it brings up a startling point about how we respond to this realization. As we read Lyotard and begin to understand what his writings about the legitimation of knowledge actually mean, it's important that we put action behind our knowledge. If we know that there are to some extent, powerful institutions that control some of the knowledge that we're being given, it becomes our responsibility to read, research, and think critically.

We are responsible for our knowledge.

Do you think there's any truth to this cartoon? How should we respond to the growing control over knowledge in our society?

# data[].attributes.body
One major issue that we discussed as we explicated Foucault's writing was the concept that the world is full of gray area. There are so many ways that living in a world that is black and white can be detrimental. The dichotomy that we have the potential to create separates us from those with differing views and polarizes us even more. This insightful article goes more in depth about some of the effects of possessing a black and white mindset -- showing how we exhibit primitive thinking and could increase our mental health issues.

Another interesting point that this article brings up that we didn't think about in class is how thinking only in extremes hinders us because of how complex our world truly is.

Williams writes, "It requires far less courage to live in the black and white than it does to live in the gray.  The world of gray requires that we show up and be present.  It does not afford us the luxury of putting life on automatic pilot."

Is it possible to live courageously in a world of black and white? What can we do to live in more gray areas?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To see the world in black and white is to live within the contours of extremism. This outlook neatly divides the world into right versus wrong, good versus evil, and yes versus no.

This thinking is dependent upon such words as always and never. Especially in times of crisis, the black and white worldview is looked upon as strength and courage to the casual observer.

Black and white thinking makes up a good portion of American cinema. It does not require much analysis to determine who is the "good guy" and who is the "bad guy."

John Wayne, who is an American icon, made millions portraying himself in myriad roles as a clear thinking man of action. Wayne, the character, was definitely a man who had little use for nuance; and once a decision was made that was it.

America's ongoing struggle with race is usually summed up in black and white terms. Though appearing to be the best choice in the short term, black and white thinking can bring about long-term negative consequences.

The problem with black and white thinking is that it usually does battle in a world that is nuanced and gray.

Cognitive analysis begins in black and white terms, this is how children learn to use words and organize their thoughts. How many parents have provided their seven-year-old with a rule, only to later alter the decree ever so slightly and have the child retort with: "But you said?" In the world of Developmental Psychology this is called primitive thinking.

As adults, we are prone to primitive thinking during moments of crisis and stress. Mark Sichel, author and psychotherapist, writes, "When the adult starts relying on the words "always" or "never," and seeing the world in black and white terms, they are slipping back to the way they saw the world as a child."

In the world of black and white we can become overwhelmed with the desire to find "the" answer. This is why church attendance grew across the country immediately following 9/11--folks looking for an answer, trying to understand the "why" question.

For all of the obvious short- term reasons to embrace black and white thinking, there is definite a downside.

Not only does black and white thinking show little appreciation for the world of gray it has even less for the concept of self-reflection. To self-reflect, especially after a decision has been made, could open one to the possibility of being wrong--which defeats the purpose of black and white thinking. Many psychologists maintain that black and white thinking actually exasperates mental health issues like depression and anxiety.

Black and white thinking is also flawed because it inherently assumes a static world. It is dependent upon everything and everyone maintaining the role that such thinking has already preordained.

There is little regard for the human condition that does not correspond to its beliefs, because black and white thinking is rooted more toward the generic than the situational. Failure becomes harder to confront because one tends to place an inordinate amount of energy being right. It is an unfortunate default against the complexities of the world.

Our political leadership has been at its best when those leaders have dared to enter into the world of gray. Imagine how America would be different had Washington, Lincoln, or Roosevelt maintained black and white thinking throughout their respective wars. Their greatness today is not measured simply by the end result but also by their ability to adapt in lieu of unsuspected challenges--some by their own making.

It requires far less courage to live in the black and white than it does to live in the gray. The world of gray requires that we show up and be present. It does not afford us the luxury of putting life on automatic pilot.

Moreover, black and white thinking, though it may provide momentary comfort, is simply unrealistic to sustain. After all, even black and white photos come with their own varying shades of gray.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist.
E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at (510) 208-6417. Send a letter to the editor to soundoff@angnewspapers.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black and White Thinking doesn't Work in a Gray World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To see the world in black and white is to live within the contours of extremism. This outlook neatly divides the world into right versus wrong, good versus evil, and yes versus no. This thinking is dependent upon such words as always and never.

# data[].attributes.body
Though Nietzsche possessed a wide variety of postmodern beliefs, none is more clear than his opinion of Christianity. A devout atheist, Nietzsche is often considered as an enemy to Christianity. However, writer for The Guardian Giles Fraser has a different view of Nietzsche. Fraser even credits Nietzsche and his philosophies for helping him convert to Christianity.

Fraser writes, "[Nietzsche] is in a completely different place to the new atheist brigade of Richard Dawkins and AC Grayling. If God walked into the room, Nietzsche would stab him – for his 'God is dead' revelation is that humanity can only become free if it rejects the idea of the divine. Christianity is not a mistake. It is wickedness dressed up as virtue."

What evidence do we have of Nietzsche's belief that Christianity is "wickedness dressed up as virtue?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nietzsche's passionate atheism was the making of me | Giles Fraser

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Giles Fraser: The Big Ideas: Nietzsche's pious lack of faith led to my own conversion to Christianity

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 6 -- Okay, but what is postmodernism?

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 6 -- Okay, but what is postmodernism?

# data[].attributes.body
Today we started studying postmodernism... YAY, right?

We covered a lot of ground in class and got a really great handout that compares premodernism, modernism, and postmodernism. This is a simplified version of the diagram.

For real though, I think that this picture shows how a lot students view these three philosophical eras. Additionally, though, I think that this does give a fairly accurate representations of these time periods. The dot representing the premodern era accurately depicts the lack of mobility in philosophy and the unquestionable nature of the Church. The arrow in modern philosophy shows how many philosophers wanted to achieve a higher state of enlightenment through critical thinking and reasoning. Because we haven't began studying postmodernism for very long, I definitely think that the illustration used for postmodernism is spot on.

What questions do you have about postmodernism that you hope to get answered by the end of the semester?

# data[].attributes.body
**Disclaimer -- I am not a communist. Additionally, I believe that taking Scripture out of context and simply making Jesus a pawn in our personal ethics minimizes God and His glory. Using the Bible and Jesus' character for our political/economical gain perverts the beauty of the Gospel and makes God's redemptive story about us and what we want, not God's grace. I am not seeking to support communism or capitalism in this post, merely to spark discussion!**

In this article,  the understood link between atheism and communism is refuted and the relationship between Christianity and communism/socialism is drawn. One interesting part of this article is how it points out the use of phrases like "In God we trust" or "one nation under God" in American society. Additionally, the biblical idea of serving "the least of these" can seem to support certain economic systems.

How should we respond to Scripture in terms of our government and the economy? Because church and state are separate, should the Bible hold any weight in how our government and economy work?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One topic of discussion which comes up every so often is the connection between fervent evangelical Christianity and equally fervent anti-communism. In the minds of many Americans, atheism and communism are indelibly linked and political actions opposed to communism have long taken the form of strengthening America's public Christianity.

The Origins of "In God We Trust"

It was thus that the American government made " In God We Trust" the national motto and put it on all money in the 1950s.

It was also for this reason that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance around the same time.

Because of all this, one gets the impression that the Bible is some sort of treatise on capitalism and Jesus as an early venture capitalist. The fact that just the opposite appears to be true is thus very surprising. The book of Acts has two explicit passages depicting the very communistic nature of the early Christian community:

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement"). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

Communist Inspirations from the Old and New Testaments

Is it possible that Marx's famous line "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" took its inspiration directly from the New Testament? Immediately following this second passage is a very interesting story about a couple, Ananias and Sapphira, who sold a piece of property but only gave the community a portion of the proceeds, keeping some of it for themselves.

When Peter confronts them with this, they both fall down and die -- leaving the impression (for many people) that they were struck dead.

Killing bourgeoisie landowners who fail to give all of their money to the community? That's not merely communism, that's Stalinism.

Of course, in addition to the above, there are many, many statements attributed to Jesus which emphasize doing all that you can to help the poor -- even to the point of him recommending that a rich man sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor if he really wishes to get into heaven. The Old Testament also indicates that something akin to communism is the preferable way to live:

This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Ex. 16:16-18)

It is no wonder, then, that any number of Christian groups have adopted ways of living which, while explicitly based upon biblical stories, are also expressions of communist ideals.

Such groups include the Shakers, Mormons, Hutterites and more.

In summary, this isn't so much a problem with the Bible as it is a problem with the people who claim to follow the Bible and use it as their primary guide to how they should live their lives. Some certainly take passages like the above to heart -- witness the strong social ethic of many Catholics and the very communistic Liberation Theology which has developed out of Catholicism.

Most, however, simply ignore the above passages -- just as they ignore so much else which is politically or morally inconvenient.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does the Bible Say About Communism and Socialism?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One topic of discussion which comes up every so often is the connection between fervent evangelical Christianity and equally fervent anti-communism. In the minds of many Americans, atheism and communism are indelibly linked and political actions opposed to communism have long taken the form of strengthening America's public Christianity.

# data[].attributes.body
This graphic portrays capitalism as a pyramid, placing the different groups on different level, supporting different things. One interesting thing about this illustration is its placement of religion. It is placed under money and under the government with the tagline "We fool you." Additionally, the working class is seen on the bottom level of the pyramid, working to support every other level.

What does the placement of religion in this illustration say about capitalism?

Has money become our new god?

Though this image is from 1912, what parts of it are still seen in America's capitalistic society? What aspects of this are a poor representation of capitalism?

# data[].attributes.body
Freud's "The Future of an Illusion" left me with some questions about the philosopher and his beliefs. I was surprised to learn that about Freud's later published work "Moses and Monotheism." This book suggested that the history of Moses and the Israelites that we see in today's biblical canon is incorrect. This article discusses the subject matter of Freud's later writings and Freud's changing relationship with religion. I was shocked to find out that, while he never believed in the Christian God or even believed that the Bible was true , he began to see religion as more than a school of thought that would give people a "father figure." Freud actually began to see the hope in religion.

If Freud was true in theorizing that monotheism actually came from the Egyptians, how would that change today's religious and secular society?

The author states, "'Moses and Monotheism' indicates that Freud, irreligious as he was, could still find inspiration in a religious figure." How does this change your view of Freud?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before leaving Vienna, Freud gave the Nazis a parting gift. They had made it clear to him that his emigration was contingent on signing a statement saying that he had not been molested in any way and that he had been able to continue with his scientific work. Freud signed, but then added a coda of his own devising: "I can most highly recommend the Gestapo to everyone."

n London, where Freud arrived in June 1938, he encountered another sort of resistance to finishing and publishing the Moses book. The first person who came to see him at his house on Elsworthy Road was his neighbor, a Jewish scholar named Abraham Yahuda. Yahuda had gotten wind of the contents of the volume and had come to beseech Freud not to publish. Didn't the Jews have enough trouble in the world without one of their number saying that Moses was not Jewish and that - in contrast to the peaceful death depicted in the Bible - Moses had been murdered by the Jews themselves, who resented the harsh laws he had tried to impose on them? Did Freud actually intend to claim that over time guilt for the murder had enhanced Moses' status and his legacy of monotheism, creating in the Jews what Freud liked to call a "reaction formation"? Yahuda was far from being the last of such petitioners. During his early days in London, Freud received no end of entreaties to let the project go.

What did Freud do? He published of course - and not just in German but, as quickly and conspicuously as possible, in English. The reviews were terrible. The private response was often bitter. And Freud was delighted. He reveled in the strong sales figures, shrugged off the nasty reviews and sang his own praises. "Quite a worthy exit," he called the Moses book.

And it was, but not chiefly because of the strange speculations about Moses' identity that worried Yahuda and scandalized the book's first readers. There is a more subtle and original dimension to the book, and perhaps it was that dimension that made Freud so determined to complete and publish it, despite all the resistance. For in "Moses and Monotheism" Freud has something truly fresh to say about religion.

About two-thirds of the way into the volume, he makes a point that is simple and rather profound - the sort of point that Freud at his best excels in making. Judaism's distinction as a faith, he says, comes from its commitment to belief in an invisible God, and from this commitment, many consequential things follow. Freud argues that taking God into the mind enriches the individual immeasurably. The ability to believe in an internal, invisible God vastly improves people's capacity for abstraction. "The prohibition against making an image of God - the compulsion to worship a God whom one cannot see," he says, meant that in Judaism "a sensory perception was given second place to what may be called an abstract idea - a triumph of intellectuality over sensuality."

If people can worship what is not there, they can also reflect on what is not there, or on what is presented to them in symbolic and not immediate terms. So the mental labor of monotheism prepared the Jews - as it would eventually prepare others in the West - to achieve distinction in law, in mathematics, in science and in literary art. It gave them an advantage in all activities that involved making an abstract model of experience, in words or numbers or lines, and working with the abstraction to achieve control over nature or to bring humane order to life. Freud calls this internalizing process an "advance in intellectuality," and he credits it directly to religion.

reud speculates that one of the strongest human desires is to encounter God - or the gods - directly. We want to see our deities and to know them. Part of the appeal of Greek religion lay in the fact that it offered adherents direct, and often gorgeous, renderings of the immortals - and also, perhaps, the possibility of meeting them on earth. With its panoply of saints, Christianity restored visual intensity to religion; it took a step back from Judaism in the direction of the pagan faiths. And that, Freud says, is one of the reasons it prospered.

Judaism, on the other hand, never let go of the great renunciation. The renunciation, according to Freud, gave the Jews remarkable strength of intellect, which he admired, but it also made them rather proud, for they felt that they, among all peoples, were the ones who could sustain such belief.

Freud's argument suggests that belief in an unseen God may prepare the ground not only for science and literature and law but also for intense introspection. Someone who can contemplate an invisible God, Freud implies, is in a strong position to take seriously the invisible, but perhaps determining, dynamics of inner life. He is in a better position to know himself. To live well, the modern individual must learn to understand himself in all his singularity. He must be able to pause and consider his own character, his desires, his inhibitions and values, his inner contradictions. And Judaism, with its commitment to one unseen God, opens the way for doing so. It gives us the gift of inwardness.

Freud was aware that there were many modes of introspection abroad in the world, but he of course thought psychoanalysis was by far the best. He said that the poets were there before him as discoverers of the inner life but that they had never been able to make their knowledge about it systematic and accessible. So throughout the Moses book, Freud subtly identifies himself with the prophet and implies that psychoanalysis may be the most consequential heir of the Jewish "advance in intellectuality." Freud believed that he had suffered for his commitment to psychoanalysis (which did not and does not lack detractors) and clearly looked to Moses as an example of a great figure who had braved resistance to his beliefs, both by Pharaoh in Egypt and by his own people. Moses hung on to his convictions - much as Freud aspired to do.

Though Freud hoped that mankind would pass beyond religion, he surely took inspiration from the story of Moses, a figure with whom he had been fascinated for many years. (He published his first essay on the prophet in 1914.) Freud wanted to lead people, and he wanted to make conceptual innovations that had staying power and strength: for this there could be no higher exemplar than the prophet.

"Moses and Monotheism" indicates that Freud, irreligious as he was, could still find inspiration in a religious figure. Something similar was true about Freud's predecessor, Nietzsche. Nietzsche is famous for detesting Christianity, and by and large he did. But he did not detest Jesus Christ - whose spontaneity, toughness and freedom of spirit he aspired to emulate. "There has been only one Christian," he once said, one person who truly lived up to the standards of the Gospel, "and he died on the cross."

Schopenhauer, to whom both Nietzsche and Freud were deeply indebted, was himself an unbeliever, as well as being an unrelenting pessimist. To Schopenhauer, life was pain, grief, sorrow and little else. Yet he, too, was able to take inspiration from Christianity, affirming as he did that a faith that had a man being tortured on a cross as its central emblem couldn't be entirely misleading in its overall take on life.

Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud were all at times able to recognize religion as being what Harold Bloom has wisely called it: not the opium of the people but the poetry of the people. They read Scripture as though it were poetry, and they learned from it accordingly. They saw that even if someone does not believe in a transcendent God, religion can still be a source of inspiration and of practical wisdom about how to live in the world. To be sure, it often takes hard intellectual work to find that wisdom. (As the proverb has it, "He who would bring home the wealth of the Indies must carry the wealth of the Indies with him.") Yet Freud's late-life turn shows us that there is too much of enduring value in religion - even for nonbelievers - ever to think of abandoning it cold.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Relgion and Faith - Sigmund Freud - Atheism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Before leaving Vienna, Freud gave the Nazis a parting gift. They had made it clear to him that his emigration was contingent on signing a statement saying that he had not been molested in any way and that he had been able to continue with his scientific work.

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 2 -- The Coexistence of Science and Faith.

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 2 -- The Coexistence of Science and Faith.

# data[].attributes.body
The heated debate between science and religion are perhaps most intense when it comes to the topic of creationism versus evolution. However, the all-or-nothing view of the creation of the Earth and the origin of man seem to be dissipating as many Christians have begun to see science and faith as complementary, rather than at odds. This article examines statistics relevant to the relationship to science and faith in addition to giving insight into what could make the creationism and evolution debate such a hot topic for scientists and Christians alike.

Can science and religion be reconciled? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill Nye and Ken Ham debated whether Biblical creationism is a viable way to understand origins at the Creation Museum in Kentucky on Feb. 4, 2014.

Credit: YouTube

Never mind the outspoken Christian leaders who reject the Big Bang and human evolution; nearly 70 percent of rank-and-file evangelicals in the United States say they don't see religion and science as being totally at odds, a new survey found.

"Although many politicians and the media at large portray evangelicals as distrustful of science, we found that this is more myth than reality," Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at Rice University who orchestrated the survey, said in a statement.

Among evangelical Christians, about 48 percent said they see science and religion as complementary to one another, while 21 percent think science and religion refer to different aspects of reality and see them as entirely independent of one another, the survey found. [ Creationism vs. Evolution: 6 Big Battles]

Still, the share of evangelical Christians who think religion and science are in conflict (and see themselves on the side of religion) is 29 percent - more than double the figure in the general population (14 percent), the study found. Overall, 38 percent of adults in the United States view religion and science as complementary, while 35 percent view science and religion as separate.

Though a majority of evangelicals don't see science and religion in conflict, many of them still believe in ideas that science doesn't support. For example, about 43 percent of evangelical Christians (compared with about 22 percent of the general population) believe that God created the universe and all life inside it within the last 10,000 years, according to the survey. (By studying the oldest light in the cosmos, scientists, meanwhile, have determined that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.) And 42 percent of evangelical Americans support teaching creationism in schools instead of evolution, compared with about 18 percent of the general population who said the same.

Ecklund and her colleagues think the perception that evangelical Christians are unfriendly to science might hinge on just a few of these hot-button issues, like creationism. The evangelicals who saw science and religion as incompatible often fixated on human origins, the study found. One survey participant who was part of a largely white evangelical congregation in Houston, Texas, explained this point of view to the interviewers:

"As a Christian, creation - really it's all or nothing. Either the entire Bible's right or it's all wrong. Either everything inside of it is 100 percent accurate, or none of it is. So if creation could be disproven ... So just completely take that away, that just devastates my entire way of life, my entire being. ... Nobody wants to change. Christians don't want to change, and atheists don't want to change."

Focusing on evolution/creation has also narrowed the conversation about the relationship that religious people have with science, according to Ecklund and colleagues. The perception that evangelical Christians are hostile toward science might only be propagated with events like last year's televised debate between science popularizer Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham, who believes the Bible's Book of Genesis is a literal description of the creation of Earth, the researchers said. But these heated debates don't necessarily reflect the way average evangelicals think.

Ecklund and colleagues surveyed more than 10,000 adults from across the country about their views on religion and science. They also conducted 315 in-depth interviews with Americans of different faiths. Ecklund presented the findings last week in Washington, D.C., during an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference on religion and science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Most Evangelical Christians Say Science and Religion Can Coexist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Never mind the outspoken Christian leaders who reject the Big Bang and human evolution; nearly 70 percent of rank-and-file evangelicals in the United States say they don't see religion and science as being totally at odds, a new survey found.

# data[].attributes.headline
Week 1 -- Existentialism and Christianity

# data[].attributes.subject
Week 1 -- Existentialism and Christianity

# data[].attributes.body
After reading and discussing Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism," I was curious about the relationship between existentialism and Christianity. This article offers insight into existentialism, and even existentialism in the Bible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the many unique features of Conciliar Post is the Ask function that allows readers to pose questions to the Conciliar Post community. One of our readers has posed the following question: "Is the movement called Christian existentialism biblical or unbiblical? Can a true Christian also be an existentialist, or does the bible prohibit it?"
This is a great question, if I do say so myself. Don't worry if you don't know what existentialism is. I'll explain as we go along.

To begin, let's talk about our feelings.

What It's Like to Be an Existentialist

The core emotion or mood for existentialists is angst (often translated "anxiety" or "anguish"). The primary task of an existentialist is to figure angst out. This involves exploring what it is, why everyone has it, why some people claim they don't have it, and what we should do about it.

In exploring these issues, existentialists often come to the following general conclusion. Humans experience angst because we have a fundamental need for meaning-a need for our lives and world to make sense and have purpose. However, meaning, sense, and purpose seem to be missing, so our need goes unmet. ¹

Existentialists then try to figure out how we got into our angst-inducing predicament. They often trace angst back to the fact that being free is a huge responsibility. Even if a god handed us life's meaning on a silver platter, for example, we would still be responsible for whether we chose to accept or reject it. We cannot push off responsibility for how we live onto anyone or anything else. And that's a lot of weight to bear. ²

What, then, should we do about the angst we experience? Once again, existentialists usually conclude that we should take responsibility. We have options, and thus are responsible for how we respond. Will we make meaning, since we cannot find it in the world? ³ Will we accept our culture's prefabricated meanings? ⁴ Will we conclude that life is only apparently meaningless, and look again for the meanings we missed? ⁵ Will we choose a source of meaning that transcends the apparently-meaningless world? ⁶

Existentialists believe that none of these options are forced upon us. How we deal with our angst is a choice we each have to make. Often, however, existentialists argue that one of these choices is authentic, while the others are inauthentic. ⁷ One way of responding to our situation is faithful to the truth-to how we and the world really are-while the others are evidence of denial and self-deception.

What's Wrong with Existentialism?

The question I am supposed to answer is whether or not existentialism is excluded by scripture for Christians. This implies that there might be reasons for suspecting that existentialism is opposed to biblical Christianity. What might those reasons be?

Perhaps the most obvious is existentialism's association with atheism. Jean-Paul Sartre gave existentialism its name and argued that existentialism is a logical consequence of atheism. Without God as a ground or source, we are left in a kind of limbo. Everything-including what it means to be human-is left up to us. The non-existence of God is where angst comes from, and thus atheism is where existentialism begins, according to Sartre. ⁸

Another potential problem with existentialism is its association with moral nihilism or relativism. There are two reasons for this. The first is the fact that Friedrich Nietzsche is widely regarded as one of the original existentialists, and most people believe he was a nihilist. ⁹ The second is the fact that thinkers like Sartre believed that morality was meaningless without God. Therefore, existentialism seems to involve the claims that there is no such thing as right and wrong, or that what's right and wrong is up to you.

A third potential problem with existentialism is that people might be suspicious of famous Christian existentialists. Søren Kierkegaard, for example is a father of existentialism. Yet he was a singular character, and singular characters can be difficult to classify. Furthermore, theologians like Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann get treated as part of the Christian existentialist movement, but I hear people have doubts about their orthodoxy. ¹⁰

So, if existentialism is an atheistic, nihilistic movement attractive to unorthodox Christians, it would make sense to wonder whether existentialism and biblical Christianity are compatible. I think they are. But to explain why, I need to walk us through a little history.

Where the Term "Existentialism" Comes From

The term "existentialism" comes from Jean-Paul Sartre and is supposed to distinguish his philosophy from a group of philosophies we might call "essentialist." According to essentialists, everything has an essence. A thing has an essence because (a) it is a particular kind of thing, and (b) things of that kind have certain properties and requirements. A human's essence, for example, is "human nature." Because each of us has this essence, we each have certain properties like being able to think rationally, having a body, having emotions, and so on. And because each of us has the human essence, we each have certain requirements. We have to eat. We need to love and be loved. We ought to behave rationally.

So, essentialists believe that how humans exist, and how they ought to exist, follows from what humans are. All humans have the same essence, and so they are required to live their lives in a distinctively human manner. The requirements are physical, logical, and moral.

In contrast, Sartre took Martin Heidegger to have shown that, "existence precedes essence" ¹¹ for humans. This means that humans only come to have a settled nature or character because of how they have chosen to live. You exist first. While existing, you make choices and undertake actions. These choices and actions define you. They create your habits. They give you your character. It is through existing, therefore, that you become a particular kind of person. It is through existing that you develop an essence. ¹²

Existentialism as a Broader Movement

"Existentialism" applies first and foremost to the philosophy of Sartre. But he thought of his work as developing the philosophy of Heidegger. And Heidegger, like Sartre, was heavily influenced by Kierkegaard, with Nietzsche and Dostoevsky mixed in.

The term "existentialism," therefore, has come to apply to the entire movement that includes Sartre, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, et al. And once we see that the existentialist movement existed before and beyond Sartre, we might ask how far back it goes.

The answer to that question is, "way, way back." The oldest book of existentialism that we still regularly read today is Ecclesiastes. In fact, it is the first book I had my students read when I taught existentialism at University of Maryland, College Park.

I suspect most people will be surprised to hear that the Bible contains an existentialist book. But just consider these verses.

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." (Ecclesiastes 1:2, NIV)

The wise have eyes in their heads, while the fool walks in the darkness; but I came to realize that the same fate overtakes them both. Then I said to myself, "The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?" I said to myself, "This too is meaningless." For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered; the days have already come when both have been forgotten. Like the fool, the wise too must die! So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. (Ecclesiastes 2:13-17, NIV)

If that isn't existentialism, I don't know what is (and neither do you). But working through the issues expressed above is what the entire book of Ecclesiastes is about. Ecclesiastes is a masterwork of existentialism.

So, Is Christian Existentialism Possible?

The fact that existentialism in Western culture begins in the Bible ought to give us pause. It shows us, for example, that Sartre does not own existentialism, even if he invented the name we now use for it. Sartre was simply a prominent thinker in the recent past who dealt with a set of concerns and struggles that many had before him, and many have had since. He was a latecomer to existentialism, and his way of working it out was neither the first nor the only way.

The same might be said for the 19th and 20th century thinkers we now call "the Christian existentialists." They each had their own way of working through the issues and concerns of existentialism. But that does not mean their ways were the best or only ways of doing Christian existentialism.

When we ask, therefore, whether Christian existentialism is biblical or unbiblical, we have to distinguish two issues. The first is whether what has been labeled "Christian existentialism" was in fact biblical or unbiblical. The second is whether anything properly labeled "Christian existentialism" could be biblical.

Unfortunately, I cannot answer the first question. I simply do not know the Christian existentialists of the 19th and 20th centuries well enough. The one I know best is Kierkegaard, and he seems perfectly fine to me. However, if someone wanted to argue the opposite, I'd be happy to listen.

Even though I have nothing helpful to say about whether any particular 19th or 20th century Christian existentialist was orthodox and biblical, I can say this. The fact that Ecclesiastes is a work of existentialism shows that legitimate, orthodox, biblically-sound Christian existentialism is possible. And I hope that this possibility is one that Christian thinkers continue to take up.

How Should Christians Do Existentialism?

As Christians, we would have to reject Sartre's analysis of the cause of angst, even as we acknowledge the fact of angst. As Christians, we would say that humans struggle with angst not because there is no God, but because God made us free, or because we are cut off from God by sin, or because God is not just another created thing (and thus can seem to us to be no-thing/nothing). Perhaps, furthermore our world seems meaningless because created things only have meaning in relation to their Creator-the source of value and goodness-and we often fail to see that relationship.

Does this mean Christians cannot draw on thinkers whose existentialism is unbiblical? No. Anyone who has spent time and energy working on the same questions and issues you are exploring may have valuable insights to offer. I, for example, found that studying Nietzsche's critiques of Christianity made me a better Christian. I find Camus's commitment to the value of truth inspiring. ¹³ And I find Sartre and Heidegger's inability to escape morality telling. ¹⁴

I would hope, however, that as Christians we have resources that are not available to our non-Christian friends. We have the doctrines of the Incarnation, of creation, of redemption, and so on, that are relevant to how we examine and deal with existentialist issues. And this means, I would claim, that it is possible for Christian existentialism to be even better than atheist existentialism. Whether the existentialist philosophies and theologies we produce are any good, however, is our responsibility.
This question was asked by one of our readers. If you have a question you would like us to respond to, please visit our.
View Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Christian Existentialism Unbiblical? - Conciliar Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the many unique features of Conciliar Post is the Ask function that allows readers to pose questions to the Conciliar Post community. One of our readers has posed the following question: "Is the movement called Christian existentialism biblical or unbiblical? Can a true Christian also be an existentialist, or does the bible prohibit it?"