Neuroscience and the Soul?

I ran across this totally fascinating article a while back at the UM Portal. Scientists (once again? because it seems like I've heard this every couple of years) have discovered the chemical/electrical processes in the brain that kick in during moral decisions, religious experiences, and so forth. This leads many of them to dismiss the Judeo-Christian idea of the "soul" - which is also one of the primary reasons we believe in the sacredness of the human individual and in human rights in terms of political philosophy - but that raises a WHOLE different angle on this discussion.

Check out this passage:
"The study raises more questions: Can spirituality be drug-induced? Are practices of spiritual formation—such as meditation or fasting—really just ways of tinkering with our brain chemistry? And the ultimate question: Does a human being have a soul or just a chemistry set?

Not so fast, says James R. Thobaben, professor of social and medical ethics at Asbury Theological Seminary. “The best way for a Christian to respond to this is to question the question,” he said. “We don’t have a soul. We are a soul.”

Craig Hill of Wesley Ministry Network agrees. “This notion that, ‘Now that we understand the brain, we can dismiss the Christian notion of the soul,’—well, that shows how little people understand Christian theology,” he said."

I think these guys are off to the right start in addressing the latest objections to (supposedly) Christian teachings from science, but I especially want to zero in on this last point. I hear such wild mis-representations of Christian teachings in media and higher ed contexts that I am often quite discouraged. Our faith mis-understood and then mis-represented by people who ought to do their homework.

I heard one instance recently in fact.

Check out this ABC video story about how many Americans believe in guardian angels. The reporter spoke about our belief in angels and then went on to say that "many established churches teach that miracles only happened in Biblical times" while the camera zooms in on a Bible and other non-biblical holy books. The reporter's voice continues, "but many Americans disregard official church teachings" now there is a picture of a pastor in what appears to be the National Cathedral "and believe in guardian angels anyways."

FIRST of all who says that a guardian angel is the same thing as a miracle? There is a fundamental confusion of categories here that thoughtful Christians (like the ones who inform official doctrinal statements) would clearly recognize.

Second of all, there are very few churches if any that teach that miracles have ceased as a matter of dogma - certainly the Episcopal and Roman Catholic Churches do not teach such a thing as is visually implied by the video of the priest and choir.

Is this some conspiracy to make Americans even more anti-clerical and unwilling to submit to established church teachings than we already are? Or is it one more intance of gross mis-understanding and consequent mis-representation that occurs when reporters go on and on about things they know very little about? In either case I would say it is irresponsible reporting.

Scientists should stick to science, instead of jumping to conclusions about the theological impacts of their findings. They haven't (in most cases) been trained in the nuances of theology (this works both ways, I might add). And reporters should take more seriously the dangers of slandering "many religions groups" by spreading false information about religious groups, simply because it sounded better or the reporters were too lazy to do their homework.

Episcopal leadership deposes orthodox bishop

Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburg has been deposed by a vote of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (TEC) for "abandoning the communion of the Church." The deposition of bishops is the sort of thing I associate with the Arian controversy in the ancient Church and the crisis that surrounded it. Clearly this move by the liberal 'inclusive' leadership of TEC will not help to continue the spirit of goodwill that was so carefully crafted in the recent Lambeth Conference. Bishop Duncan has been a leader of conservative and orthodox Episcopalians since the Anglican crisis began in 2003 with the consecration of gay bishop Gene Robinson.

As I ponder the still unresolved crisis in the Episcopal Church, I wonder if perhaps we in The United Methodist Church (UMC) ought to wait before seeking a relationship of "Full Communion" with TEC - to give them time to decide if they even want to be in full communion with one another.

Interesting proposal on Marriage in America

I would like to know what my readers (such that there are) think about this article which suggests a way out of the current debate over 'gay marriage' in the United States.

Basically, he says that the government should not issue marriages to anyone. Only religious communities such as churches or synagogues should do so. The government should simply have a civil contract that it issues to anyone who wants it: gay or straight or whatever, which will involve certain shared rights, priviledges, ownership, tax status, etc., but which will not be a "marriage." Marriage will become an exclusively religious institution. The government, likewise, would no longer be involved in divorces at all, but would simply disolved a civil contract. Whether someone was "divorced" or could remarry would become a question for religious officials.

Marriage has been a public institution with legal standing throughout Western History, and such a change would represent a fundamental shift in our civilization. It might be short-sighted to make such a shift to deal with the controversy of the moment, a shift that could have unforseen consequences. On the other hand, given the proliferation of worldviews among individuals or sub-cultural social groups in our society, each worldview with its own values and convictions, it may be that the shift has already happened. The gay marriage issue will not go away, and this might simply be an example of the law keeping pace with the people.

Another consideration is whether those invovled in the debate will really be happy with this compromise. The very idea of compromise as a political virtue has fallen on hard times - if not altogether died - in American political discourse, and I wonder if many will not be able to accept this one? Those on the left - many of whom are parts of religious communities and want the law to change precisely in order to also influence the position of their churches - may not be happy with this change. On the other side, in an effort to fight divorce many traditionalists have backed laws that actually deepen the connection between state and marriage and church - such as "covenant marriages" in my own state, which are harded to get into and more difficult to get out of (both require extensive counselling) than traditional marriages. The assumption is of course that, as marriage is good for society (numerous studies on various facets of social existence can substantiate this, if we can agree that the word "good" has a definable application here), the state has an interest in promoting more stable marriages.

The place of marriage in our common social life may increasingly come under scrutiny since, because of the already-mentioned increasing divergence ('diversity' or 'disagreement') of philosophies, I strongly suspect our legal system will become more and more reductionist over time - speaking firmly on fewer and fewer issues as more and more become debated. I firmly believe that laws against polygamy, incest, and even prostitution will be increasingly difficult to defend if our society chooses a libertinism course on homosexual marriage (if consenting adults want it, we should allow it since - supposedly - that is what freedom means). I believe that our society probably will eventually choosen a libertine course over a 'natural law' or 'common good' approach, since we have already done so on other issues (such as pornography). So I find this proposal to 'abandon the marriage question' very interesting...

How Rich are YOU?

Check out this site that allows you to enter your annual income and then computes your global standing in terms of wealth.

I was a little surprised at just how high up the ladder I am. After all I'm a United Methodist college minister. We're not typically the folks you see driving the BMWs or anything like that.

As I was pondering what this statistic means - I couldn't help but think of two things. Isn't it interesting that we very middle-class Americans typically think we don't have enough? We 'don't make all that much.' Our perception is SO skewed by living in a society where wealth is common. And (no doubt connected to that) ours is a society that trains us to think in terms of scarcity: we don't have enough, we need more. After all, this is good for the Almighty Economy, whom we serve.

But I suspect this attitude and way of looking at the world is poisonous to our souls. Ours is a generous God - so much so that he gives himself away - as the Creed puts it "for us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven...he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered death and was buried." That same God wants to overwhelm self-worship and form cross-shaped generosity and self-giving love in our lives.

If we are to follow this God, to love and share union with this God, if we are to bear his image in the world, then we must ever become a generous and giving people. This is why he has warned us that "to whom much has been given, from him much will be required" and taught us that "God loves a cheerful giver." That is who he is. That is what the people of his Kingdom must therefore be.

Spiritual Type?

I'm into tradition, orderliness, words & literature, and theology. My spiritual type is "sage." What is yours?