Some Christians believe that Baptism is necessary for one to be saved. Supporters point to Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn’t believe will be condemned.” (ISV) Here, they claim, Jesus commands that we be baptized. As one supporter put it,

“How much clearer must we have it said by the Lord Himself than this… Why would Jesus tell His disciples to baptize if it were not necessary? Don’t you think that if the Lord had intended baptism to be optional that He would not have made such a strict command out of it here.”

The problem, however, is that it could have been clearer. Notice that only belief is mentioned in both parts of statement. Thus to be clearer Mark could have written the second half as “but whoever doesn’t believe or is not baptized will be condemned.” That would have been very clear. It would also be clearer if baptism was consistently mentioned as a requirement for salvation, but it isn’t. There are many passages which discuss what must be done to be saved that do not mention baptism.

When Jesus was directly asked in Mark 16:16, “‘What must we do to perform the actions of God?’ Jesus answered them, ‘This is the action of God: to believe in the one whom he has sent.’” (ISV) If baptism were required, why didn’t he mention it? If Baptism were required for salvation, how could Paul say that Christ is not send him to baptize? (1 Cor 1:17)

But there is a deeper issue here, one that goes to the core of how we are saved. Eph 2:8-9 says, “For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God and not the result of actions, to put a stop to all boasting.” (ISV).

Salvation is God’s work in us. We can accept it or we can reject it, but we cannot earn it. The real problem with saying that baptism, or any other work, is required for salvation is that it means that Christ death on the Cross is insufficient; that something else is needed. It would hold, contrary to Eph 2:8-9, that salvation is not completely a gift but something that must be earned, at least in part, as the result of the action of being baptized. One can believe that Baptism is necessary, or one can believe Eph 2:8-9. It is not possible to hold both and remain consistent.

Does this mean that we don’t need to be baptized? As the supporter above asked, “Why would Jesus tell His disciples to baptize if it were not necessary?” Jesus commanded a lot of things, if we took all of them as requirement for salvation, we truly would be putting ourselves back under the law. Fundamentally this confuses what is important with what is required.

But if they are not required for salvation, why do we follow them? John 14:21-24 lays this out. As verse 23 says, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word.” We are not baptized to be saved. We do not avoid sin to be saved. We do on serve others to be saved. If we do any of this to earn salvation, our works will be as filthy rags. Rather we should do all of this and more, out of love. We serve our Lord and Savior because we love him. A gift offered to earn something will be judged based on its merit, a gift offered in love, will be judge based on the love in which it was offered.

I have a painted rock sitting on my desk. It has sat there for over two decades now. It is not some expense piece of abstract art. And for many people, it is just a rock with sort of face on it. But for me it is very valuable. This is because it was given to me by my daughter, and it was given in love.

That is how God looks at our works as well. Not for their intrinsic merit, but for the love in which they are offered.

The final question, posed to me on how Christians can be conservatives dealt with the issue of how, since they are so against government intervention, can they seek to use government to impose their view of morality on others, in particular with the Pro-Life movement?

While a common question, it has several problems.  For one, conservatives are not against all government. There is, for example a difference between libertarianism, and conservatism.  Thus there is nothing inconsistent with conservatives seeking to, as the question puts it,  “use government to impose their view of morality on others.”   But the question is more complex.

When you get right down to it, the slogan “You can’t legislate morality” is just silly.  Virtually all laws legislate some view of morality, and thus impose that view on others.   It is not that all morals should be legislated, but rather that laws are basically the morals of a society that are believed to be so important; the power of the state should be used to enforce them.

Murder is morally wrong. In fact, it is so morally wrong, we do not want to leave it up to individuals to decide this particular issue for themselves. Therefore, we use the power of the state to enforce the moral view that murder is wrong and to impose that view on others.

What does distinguish conservatives from, on the one hand, liberals, who seem at times to want to right every wrong by passing a law, and on the other hand, libertarians, who often seem to be boarder line anarchist, is that conservatives, for the most part, have different standards depending on the level of government.  At the federal level, they are much closer to libertarians wanting very little government. Yet the closer the level of government is to the people the boarder the latitude they give the government to pass laws, and thus in that sense are closer to liberals when you get to local government, at least in their willingness to use government.

For example, while I oppose prostitution, I would also oppose a federal ban on prostitution, as that is not a federal concern.  If a state or better yet, a community wants to ban it as in most of the country, or legalize it, as in a few areas of Nevada, then that is their concern.

So how does this come into play with abortion?  There are two parts to this question. The first is the closely related, but somewhat different issue of Roe v Wade and the constitution.  Many, but certainly not all, conservatives seek the overturn of Roe, and this is very consistent with conservatism in general.  This is because an overturn of Roe, would simply remove the issue from the federal level and return it back to the states.  Before Roe, abortion was already legal in many states, illegal in others, but the trend was towards legalization at least in cases of rape, incest, or threat to life of the mother.

When it comes to opposition to abortion itself, it really comes down to how one views the fetus. It is biologically alive and genetically a human life distinct from that of the mother.  Thus those who are pro-life believe that the power of the state should protect innocent human life in the womb, just like it protects it in a lot of other areas.

Now granted things get very complex at this point because there is not just one human life to consider, but two.  Exactly how the rights of the two humans are balanced and in what circumstances one can take precedent over the other, is a matter of consider disagreement and a discussion of this would go well beyond a blog post.   But, in short, pro-life conservatives believe that the Declaration of Independence’s claim that we have been endowed by our creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness applies to human life even if it is in the womb.

Thus they don’t see any contradiction is pushing for laws to protect human life in the womb, just like we have laws protecting it out of the womb.

I am continuing to answer the questions, posed to me on how Christians can be conservatives.  This time I will address the question, how can conservatives show such a lack of concern about the uninsured as seen in their objection to ObamaCare?

The question itself has some problems, the main one being that it confuses the lack of support for a particular governmental program, with a lack of concern for a problem.   This is something that I have addressed before (e.g., here, here, and on health care here). For many liberals the ideal of government activism is so strong and ingrained, it is hard for them to conceive of any other solution to a social problem.  In short, as a general rule, the solution to any social problem is to be found in government programs, and to oppose a government program is to show a disregard for the problem itself.

But however strong the view, it is still fallacious, and is in fact the fallacy of a false choice.  Not only are there other non-governmental options for addressing these problems, the simple fact is that, right or wrong, as a general rule conservatives believe that market based solutions grounded in choice and competition for consumers are better than government solutions.

The conservative view is often mischaracterized as an absolute position which would permit no role at all for government. This is not the case, nor is it correct to say that the conservative view is based on a trust of business or and corporations. It is also not the case. In fact, often conservatives share many of the same doubts and question about business as there liberal counter parts. This is why conservatives believe that choice and competition are so important, as they serve as the main check on businesses driven by the profit motive. This is also where conservatives see a significant role for government that of ensuring that the market place allow choice and competition.

So it is not that conservatives trust big businesses, it is that they mistrust government because choice and competition do not apply. If you don’t like a particular business, you are free go to another one.  If you don’t like government, you are stuck.

When it comes to health care in general, and ObamaCare in particular, the problems Conservatives see are many, and I have written about some of them (here, and here).  As I summarized this in another post,

Thus the Democratic Health care bill will increase regulation and reduce effective choice even if it doesn’t end in single payer.  While in theory it may be able to reduce cost and expand coverage, it cannot do this while improving health care.  In short, it is doomed. And this is best case. Given the past record of government programs, the actual likelihood is that it will not even be able to control costs and we will be left with worse health-care, even higher costs and a system that is even more difficult to change.

The reason for this is actually very simple. Improvements in Health care will come, as such improvements have always come, from innovation.  Yet government does not innovate, it regulates, and regulations kills innovation.

None of this should be taken as satisfaction with the current system.  Healthcare in the US is one of most highly regulated areas of the economy. It is far from a system where choice and competition are driving factors.  Conservatives see the problems and want to solve them.  The real problem here is not a lack of concern for “the least of these,” but rather a difference of opinion on how best to address the problems. The opposition to ObamaCare is rooted in the belief that it will not make things better, it will make them worse.

One final comment; while there certainly are absolutists, many conservatives acknowledge that market solutions will not solve all problems.  No matter how much market forces improve the health care system, you cannot purchase healthcare if you don’t have any money.   Here conservatives consider two additional mechanisms.

The first is charity. While liberals at time discount the viability of this option the fact is that here are hospitals across the country that deliver health care on an ability to pay basis or for free.  This focus on charity by conservatives and government by liberals is perhaps behind the difference in charitable giving between red state and blue states,  between liberals and conservatives,  and as revealed in Aruther C. Brooks’ book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatives. If conservatives truly were heartless and greedy, why is it that on average, they give more to charity than liberals?

Finally, surprising as it may seem to some liberals, conservatives to not reject a government option as a last resort, for those with no were else to turn. The difference would be, however, that it would be a last resort, not the first and only resort, pushed by so many liberals.

So again, it is not a lack of concern that leads conservatives to reject ObamaCare, it is in fact an abundance of concern that ObamaCare will only result in making matters worse.

As I mentioned on my other blog, the wife of a liberal friend of mine recently asked some sincere questions trying to understand Conservatives.  I answered her more political question there.  Here I will address the more religiously oriented questions, though they all still have a strong political component. In general she was basically asking, how a sincere Christian could be a Conservative.

Before answering that question, I want to be clear that I do not subscribe to the opposite position, i.e. I do not question how a Liberal can be a Christian.    While politics and religion do overlap in some areas, rarely are things so clear cut as to lead to a clearly “Christian” political view, be it on the Left or the Right. Also, I want to note that the Conservative movement is itself a broad spectrum of beliefs and not all Conservatives will agree with my answers, especially since not all Conservatives are Christians.

But back to her questions; as a background she referenced three major touch stones of the Christian faith, at least when it comes to social policy.  The first was the Sermon on the Mount; the second was Jesus’ statement in Matthew 25:40, “I tell you with certainty, since you did it for one of the least important of these brothers of mine, you did it for me.” (ISV)  Finally she mentioned Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and riches!”

Against this background she asked three questions. How can conservative Christians oppose the workers right to collectively bargain?  How can they show a lack of concern about the uninsured as seen in their objection to Obamacare? Finally how come, since they are so against government intervention, they seek to use government to impose their view of morality on others, in particular with the Pro-Life movement? I will deal with the last two in future posts.

As for the first question, as it turns out, this is an issue that Christians are pretty evenly split on.  But I will address it from my view.  First, I have a problem with the whole notion of “workers rights” and see this as part of the general confusion that exists concerning the whole understanding of rights.  In brief, the concept of rights developed from the belief that we are special creations of God, created in his own image, and that God has given us abilities, such as the ability to think and reason.  The basic notion is that what God has given, no one, not even the King, as a right to take away.  Thus we see in the Declaration of Independence,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Given this view of rights, there is no such thing as a right to collectively bargain.  Unions, and the arrangements that they make with management, are just one of many potential financial arrangements that employees and employers could enter into.  Thus I would argue that collective bargaining is neither Christian nor Unchristian, and this may very well explain the divergence of views.

This of course does not meant that particular employers, or particular unions, have not acted in Christian and/or unchristian ways from time to time. This does not mean that employer or unions are always good. History is full of examples on both sides of greed, bad faith, and unconcern of the welfare of “the least of these.”

In terms of the recent attempt to restrict unions in Wisconsin, and in other states, I have a particular problem.  When dealing with a company driven by profit, there is always the possibility that management is greedy and simply trying to exploit the workers.   Yet when with comes to government employees, they are not unionizing against a greedy owner, but against the people.  In addition, there is the dichotomy, at least for those on the left, that government is supposed to be a benevolent force, not driven by profit, and looking out for our best interest, as opposed to corporations who are out for profit. Yet when it comes to unions, government is just another employer to be demonized.

Then there is the fact that it is hard to hold that state workers are in “the least of these” category when both the pay and benefits they receive are significantly better than those in the private sector who must pay the bill.  This is especially true where the public sector unions have become a significant political force, such that they have been able to elect politicians beholden to them into office.  These politicians then repay the favor by giving them pay and benefits that well exceed the private sector.

As a result, many states such as California are in serious financial problems and have huge unfunded liabilities resulting from these union contracts.  Unions can claim that the state made the contract, but they cannot ignore the fact that these contracts were made often under a threat of strike, and often by the very politicians the unions sought to elect.

Thus one could just as easily turn the whole question around.  Is the Christian position really to side with those workers who are the best off, at the expense of those who must pay the bills; many of whom are worse off, or who will suffer a loss of services, because the money is not there?  Is the Christian position, really to ask those struggling on fixed incomes to do will less even less, because their property taxes must rise to pay the wages of government workers making far more.

Bottom line: I believe this is a place where Christians of good heart can and do disagree. Not because of the principles of the Christian faith, but how they are applied and how they view the issue.

There is a direct correlation between spirituality and religious behavior and how we see and feel and react to the world around us.  Those who pray on a daily basis, and attend religious intuitions on a weekly basis,  are happier,  healthier,  more content, more satisfied in their job,  closer to their families, and have a better outlook towards the future. If you ever wanted evidence that spirituality and religiosity has a direct impact on how we regard life,  its  right there in the book for you.

Frank Luntz, discussing his book “What America Really Want … Really” with Dennis Prager Sept 15, 2009 Hour 2 on Prager’s paid site .

I have written up my testimony in 5 part.

Part I – From Atheism to Theism

Part II – Exploring Theism and the New Age Movement

Part III – The Pros and Cons of Encountering Christians

Part IV – With the Mormons

Part V – For By Grace… The Gift of God.

Listen to the MP3

In his new book.  The Jesus Paradigm.  Dr.  David Alan Black issues a bold challenge to the church.  His fundamental premise is that the Church lost its way around the time it became allied with the Roman Empire following the rise to power of Constantine.  and for the most part has been doing things wrong ever since. 

While the reformation was an important corrective.  it still retained many of the errors.  and thus was still locked into a pattern for the church that was based more on the world’s way of doing things rather than the biblical pattern.  For Dr.  Black.  what was needed was not a reformation but a restoration more in lines with the approach taken by the Anabaptists.  a restoration of the Church back to what it originally was and was meant to be.  A Church not based on the way the world works and views things.  but a church that follows the model found in the Bible.  a church truly centered on the teachings of Jesus.  not just in theology and morality.  but in its organization.  structure.  and practice as well. 

My view of The Jesus Paradigmis best summed up by Proverbs 27:17.  “As iron sharpens iron.  so one man sharpens another.” Calls for change are never easy.  and calls for changes so large as to constitute a paradigm shift are extremely difficult.  Dr.  Black’s challenge is no different.  In fact many will find much they disagree with.  I certainly did.  But the true value in Dr.  Blacks’ book is not the suggestion he makes.  but the effective way he calls.  and even challenges.  the reader to think deeply and seriously about the Church.  its structure.  and its role in both the world and the life of the believer. 

As Dr.  Black writes.  “Churches today have to make a choice to follow contemporary patterns of ecclesiology or use the early church as a model.” (p 40) He believe that the division between church leaders and members is far to stark.  Not only being unscriptural.  Dr.  Black argues that this has resulted in a “responsibility redistribution.”  For example.  the Bible is fairly clear that parents have the responsibility to bring up their children “by training and instructing them about the Lord.” (Eph 6:4 ISV) Yet the current church structure has encouraged parent to abdicate their responsibility turning it over to church leaders to deal with. 

Rather than the current structure that is so common and widespread as to be taken for granted.  Dr.  Black believes that churches should move towards an “every-member ministry” where “most jobs that are currently salaried positions will be filled by volunteer help”(p 2).  and where “new believers will be asked to specify a regular community involvement… in addition to their commitment to a ministry in the church.” (p 3)

Such suggestions are such a stark departure from the norm.  that many might be tempted to reject them out of hand.  But the way Dr.  Black lays out the biblical and historical evidence in support of his position will permit no such kneejerk rejection.  In some respects.  there is nothing new in Dr.  Black’s biblical evidence.  For the most part he simply quotes familiar verses.  But again this is one of the strengths of the book.  for often these verses are so common that we have passed over them without much thought as to what they are really saying. 

For example.  in 1 Thess 5:14 Paul writes “We encourage you.  brothers and sisters.  to admonish the unruly.  comfort the discouraged.  and uphold the weak.”  As Dr.  Black relates.  “I well recall how shocked I was when I first realized that Paul was exhorting.  not leaders.  but the brothers to ‘admonish the unruly.’… Every time Paul wrote to a church in order to deal with its problems.  he never appealed to the leaders.  Instead.  his constant request was for the whole church to deal with its trouble.” (p 70)

Perhaps the weakest part of the book is Dr.  Black’s comments on the relationship between politics and the church.  But this was not because I disagreed with Dr.  Blacks general position that “Christians today must maintain an ultimate commitment to Christ and eschew loyalty to a political party.” In many ways I agree there must be some sort of separation.  even if I do reject the recently developed constitutional concept of a strict separation of church and state.  This is why I do not write about political issues on my consider.org blog. 

Nor is it because I disagreed with some of the political positions he took.  which I do.  Rather it is because he did not remain consistent with his own position.  Thus if I were to attempt to rebut some of the positions he takes.  I would need to do it on my political blog (Hushbeck.com/blog) and not on my Christian blog (consider.org/blog). 

Still.  overall.  while I found much to disagree with in The Jesus Paradigm.  the process of working through the book.  of struggling with and considering the criticism Dr.  Black has concerning the state of the Church.  the corrective measures he suggests.  and most importantly the biblical and historical evidence he lays out.  helped clarify many of my lingering doubts and nagging problems I see in the modern church.  It moved my thinking.  and my understanding forward.  And what more could one ask for in a book other that the Bible?  In short.  it is an important book that should be not only read.  but seriously considered by anyone interested in the state and direction of the modern church.

This is Elgin Hushbeck.  asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Note: as a matter of full disclosure.  Dr.  Black was my professor of among other things NT Greek.  and The Jesus Paradigm was published by Energion.  which also published my three books.

Listen to the MP3

In his Christianity Today article “The Scandal of the Public Evangelical” Mark Galli gives a stark challenge to the evangelical movement.  Pointing to the many recent scandals that have involved evangelicals, he writes, “We assume that with sufficient exhortation and moral effort, our sins will become smaller than a widow’s mite and our righteousness larger than life. This is coupled with the long-standing evangelical myth that there should be something different about the Christian. A look. An attitude. A lifestyle.”

I found a number of things troubling about Galli’s argument.  The first was his starting point: the failing of a few public evangelicals, in particular Carrie Prejean, the Gosselins, and  Mark Sanford.

It seems to me that Galli has fallen victim to the celebrity based mentality so prevalent in our media driven culture, a culture that is normally very hostile to evangelicals, at least when they are not just ignoring them.    The sad story of Carrie Prejean, Miss California, demonstrates this very well.  She rockets to fame because she took a mild stance in favor of traditional marriage, and for that she becomes a star for evangelicals, and target for the media.

This brings me to one of Galli’s statements that I believe was exaggerated to the point of being a straw man. This was his claim that “our sins will become smaller than a widow’s mite and our righteousness larger than life.”   Now perhaps that is what he is hearing on Sunday mornings, but it has not been my experience.   In fact, I see almost the opposite; the stress on being just “sinners saved by grace” to the point of downplaying of sin; the increased stress on the praise portion of the service, and the downplaying of the actual study of the Bible; the growing idea among the young that church is a fun activity rather than a serious commitment to God.

But even if that were not the case, Prejean’s is to me more an example of the viciousness of the media than any weakness among evangelicals.  Even if we could all reach perfection in Christ, we would still all have a past, and given enough media animosity, a past that could be exposed.   After all just look how Jesus was attacked, and he was perfect.  So how much more can we, mere sinners, be attacked.

Neither the Gosselins nor Mark Sanford are representative of what I would consider “average” evangelical role models.  They are the “role models” the world chooses for us, but they should not be the role models we as the body of Christ look to.  Our role models are of little interest to the world but can be found in virtually every church should we care to look. They are those who live godly lives of service, with little or no fanfare, but a love for the Lord.

Galli’s argument has at its root an additional flaw.   If we seriously follow Christ I do believe, in Galli’s  words, “that there should be something different about the Christian. A look. An attitude. A lifestyle.”  Following Christ will have an impact on us, how we live, and how we interact with others.    This, in fact can be seen in the decline in things like honesty in the culture as it has moved away from Christianity and embraced a more secular view.

But there is a huge difference between better and perfect.   We are not, and I believe never will be, in this world at least, perfect followers of Christ.  We all still struggle with sin, and will continue do so while we live. But we are also indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and leading a spirit filled life will have a impact on how we live.  It will not make us perfect, but it will, if we seek to follow our Lord, make us better.   And this should be something we have to offer the world.  That so many Christians often resemble the world is, I believe, a failure of the Church.

That said, Galli does make a valid point that this is not the only thing we have to offer the world. It is not even the primary thing we have to offer.   As he points out toward the end of his article, “What we offer the world is not ourselves or our moral example or our spiritual integrity. What we offer the world is our broken lives, saying, ‘We are sinners saved by grace.’ What we offer the world is Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

That is, and always should be our primary message to a world that is lost; the message of Gospel.  The recent public failures should serve only to remind us that the world is hostile to the message of God and will use whatever it can to discredit it. This will not change, nor will Christians in the limelight cease to disappoint us from time to time.   But our goal is not to please a celebrity enthralled culture, it is to reach world with the Gospel, and to serve a risen Lord.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Listen to the MP3

As someone who taught critical thinking at university level to both students and teachers, I find few issues more lacking in critical thought than the debate over marriage.   As a strong supporter of the traditional view of marriage, it is no surprise that I would find the arguments of those who support nontraditional forms of marriage lacking, but I frequently find the arguments of supporters lacking as well.

The reasons for this are many.  One, of course, is the generally low level of critical thinking found in society in general.  Despite the claims of academicians, people are not taught to think in most schools.  Rather than thinking for themselves, they are taught to accept what academics say, either directly, or in the modern equivalent of the Papal Bull, the scientific study.

Another big source of confusion is the overlapping concerns of the state and religion. For many the institution of marriage is primarily a religious commitment, done in a church, with vows taken before God. Yet it is also licensed and controlled by the state.

Finally, there is the fact that marriage has been so universally accepted and so ingrained into our society and culture that most have just taken it for granted. It is just what people do; with little thought as to why. 

All of this combined leads to a great deal of confusion. So over the next few post I will try to clear up some of this confusion, and to outline some reasons why I support the traditional view of marriage and as a result oppose non-traditional forms such as same-sex marriage and polygamy.   This formulation is not accidental. In many respects, it is not so much that I oppose same-sex marriage and polygamy; rather it is that I support the traditional view of marriage, marriage between one man and one woman.

So first, I will attempt to clear up some of the misconceptions that surround this issue. Then I will attempt to outline a case supporting the traditional view of marriage, finally I will attempt to answer some of the more common arguments used to support non-traditional forms of marriage.

 The first thing that I want to clear up is the confusion caused by the overlapping of government and religion on this issue.   There is little question that both are involved in marriage and have been for quite some time. Within the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, marriage has always had religious overtones.  Despite the claims of a few, marriage is between a man and woman, the model being the established with the first couple: Adam and Eve. (Genesis 2:18-25)

For the most part, government’s role in marriage has been at best secondary and at times non-existent.  Why should there be otherwise?  Marriage was maintained by the church; enforced by the standards of the community as a whole.  When communities were small and closely knit, where everyone knew everyone else, there was little role for government to play.

This began to change in the 18^th century, one notable example being the Marriage Act of 1753 in England, which was a huge movement of the government into area of marriage.  The industrial Revolutions brought about not only great improvements in the standard of living, but also great disruptions in the culture. While the exact causes are disputed, illegitimacy skyrocketed. There was also a growing awareness of the period of childhood as a time in which children learn and are prepared to become adults.

Few would question that governments have a legitimate interest in preserving their existence, and part of this is the development of the next generation of citizens. This is the justification for the existence of public schools.  Likewise, government has an interest in ensuring that children are raised in the best environment and this is the main justification for government entering into the realm of marriage. 

Remove this interest and you remove the main reason for government regulating marriage at all. The other major issue would be property rights, but if viewed as an issue of property, there is little to marriage, at least from a government perspective, than any other contract and thus little reason for government involvement.  In fact as far as property, government marriage laws are already inadequate as is demonstrated by the increasing use of pre-nuptial  agreements.

Despite the key role of religion, the current debate over marriage is not a religious debate. Frankly, from a religion point of view, there are religious groups that do permit polygamy and same-sex marriage, and such marriage can be, have been, and are being done.  There is, and should be, nothing illegal about this.  What these marriages do not have is the sanction, and recognition of the government.

As such, what is really at issue here is state sanctioned of marriage, not the religious definition of marriage.   Since this is an act of government, it is by definition a public act and not just a matter between those involved in the marriage.   To request the sanction of the government is by definition to make it a public issue, and not just a private matter.

So, even though there is a strong religion component to marriage, in the remaining parts I will restrict my arguments to what is really in dispute, the government role in marriage.  Because of this, I will not post the remaining parts of this discussion on my religious blog.  Those who are reading this on consider.org will need to go to my general blog (www.hushbeck.com/blog ) to read the remaining posts.

Listen to the MP3

There is an interesting paradox with many atheists, particularly the neo-atheists.  They frequently see themselves as valiant warriors defending reason against the darkness of faith, which for them is little more than superstition.  For them believing in the events of the first Easter is little better than believing in the Easter Bunny. 

As I demonstrated with my reviews of the books of Hitchens, Harris  and Dawkins, nothing is further from the truth.  In fact, many of the atheist’s claims have little more than a façade of rationality.  They may seem rational at first glance, but any serious examination quickly reveals significant problems.  Take for example the common atheist claim that there is no evidence to support the existence of God; a bold claim, particularly given that it is entirely false. 

For just one example, the scientific evidence today is clear that the entire universe, the natural world as we know it, had a beginning.  Either it came from something, or it came from nothing.  But the idea of something coming from nothing is akin to magic, and is not rational.  If you say it came from something then this is evidence for the existence of God (i.e., some entity beyond the natural world powerful enough to create all of reality, as we know it.)

In this case the atheist is somewhat like the little boy caught with candy they are not suppose to have in their pockets.  Which is the more rational answer: A) the boy took it against his parent wishes, or B) it just appeared out of nothing in their pocket?   Likewise, which is the more rational answer: A) the universe was created by something; B) the universe just appeared out of nothing?  In this case, the theist only has to argue that they do not believe something came from nothing. 

Now the atheist here has several possible counters, but since the claim we are looking at is that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, they have a real problem.  They must not only argue that something from nothing is the best answer, this claim depends on it being the only rational answer, something that is clearly absurd. 

When confronted with this absurdity, most atheists I have talked to counter with some variation of the argument that since this does not prove God exists, it is not evidence that he exists.  This is an extremely anti-intellectual claim, which if the atheist applied universally would mean that we could know very little.   

Most of what we know, or think we know is built up on a whole range of pieces of evidence, both pro and con, where we, at least in theory, make the best choice we can based on the evidence we have.  Yet the atheist’s claim is that any piece of evidence that does not constitute proof is to be ignored, for only in this way can their claim that there is no evidence to support the existence of God be maintained.  Since their approach to the evidence for God would be so devastating to knowledge in other areas it is only applied here, and thus results in special pleading, which is yet another irrationality.

This brings us back to the initial question of why is it that the atheist’s defense of reason is so fundamentally irrational.  I believe the core of the problem is that there is an inherent contradiction in atheism and in agnosticism as well.   Both are grounded in an attempt to reject all forms of dogmatism, to reject anything that depends on faith, and to rely only on reason and evidence.  In many respects, this is a noble goal and when it emerged from the unscientific and superstitious past, it quickly brought great rewards. 

Where atheists and agnostics go wrong is that they attempt to apply this universally, and therein lies the contradiction.  All worldviews are, by their very nature, and the nature of reality, to some extent based on faith, and thus all have some aspects of dogmatism.  In short, what atheists have done is accept a worldview that rejects all worldviews. 

They frequently try to dance around this difficulty by claiming that theirs is the starting point, or in some way the default position.  This shows up in there constant insistence that they do not have to demonstrate anything.  The burden of proof is on everyone else; their views just are. 

Atheists cannot just accept the reality that they also have a worldview without a major rethinking of atheism.  In addition, as with the example above, once the atheistic worldview is acknowledge and compared alongside with all other worldviews, atheists do not always do so well.  They can continue to deny it, but ultimately this becomes little more than a dogmatic insistence that they are not dogmatic.

So the atheist paradox is grounded in the core irrationality that atheism is a worldview that attacks all worldviews.  Like everyone else, atheists have faith in the fundamental beliefs that make up their worldview.  Not only is it a blind faith, in many respect it is a double blind faith, as they cannot even see, and in fact strongly deny, what they are actually doing.   

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.