The Duty to Defend the (Nearly) Indefensible
Recently, P.Z. Myers, a professional scientist and amateur critic of religion, raised a fuss when he said:
. . . I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. . .
Fortunately, his fears are unfounded. Professor Myers is in no danger of being burned at the stake, unless smoking hot email complaints count as torture.
That angry email is understandable. Professor Myers is encouraging the desecration of the most sacred symbols of faith for the vast majority of the world’s Christians. He is doing so while making no great argument or artful satire. He is doing so simply because he despises somebody else’s views. If they feel anguish at his actions, then he mocks them for caring about what he (originally) called a “g-d d-mned cracker.”
Roman Catholics believe these “consecrated communion wafers” are the Body and Blood of Christ. The philosophy behind this is complex, finding roots in Aristotle by way of Aquinas. The Orthodox Church, which is my own home, also believes that in some sense Christians share the life of Jesus Christ, while having no fixed and official theory regarding the means used. For Protestants it is a meaningful symbol of their life in Christ.
Even if Professor Myers advocates defacing a mere symbol, and all Christians are wrong about what it means, it would be at best a boorish act on his part.
Symbols, of course, matter. A picture of my wife may just be paper, but it would upset and hurt me if someone took it from my office and defaced it. Flag desecration would be unwise within twenty yards of many Americans. It would be particularly painful to veterans. That piece of fabric represents great sacrifice and service to them. It is natural and normal for humanity to infuse objects with meaning.
Christians have every right to point out that they think what Professor Myers is doing is wrong. We have an obligation to do what we can reasonably do to keep our services from being disrupted and our cherished ceremonies mocked, but our duty does not end there.
The duty of a Christian is obvious: we must do to P.Z. Myers and secularism as (we wish) he and his extreme secularists would do to Christians.
First, we must not confuse the actions of one skeptic with that of most skeptics.
Myers does not represent most secularists I know. The vast majority of secularists are good citizens and neighbors. They have been frequently misunderstood. Sadly, they have even faced some persecution for their minority beliefs. All the while many nonbelievers have held up standards of reason and evidence that are good models for all of us.
As a teacher who uses the Socratic method, I owe much to good secular teachers who taught it to me. My Christian faith taught me to hold my ideas provisionally, but the nonbelievers remind me of the importance of epistemological humility.
Second, we must recognize that if P.Z. Myers does blaspheme, then it will be a sad act of theatrical atheism doing more harm to his own cause than to Christianity. Such antics embarrass the vast majority of nonbelievers who are good neighbors in our pluralistic, but majority Christian society.
P.Z. Myers seems intent on hurting people because he disagrees with them. Traditional Christians may be misguided in their beliefs, but to go out of the way to cause them mental anguish is inexcusable. Sharp intellectual arguments or satiric art is one thing, but to act as Myers has is to cause pain without purpose.
Who would intentionally cause pain to the misguided? How will that help anyone?
Third, we should remind ourselves that Myers is not alone in his lack of love for the feelings of his neighbor.
Surely it is no better, and perhaps worse, when we piously kneel to receive Christ’s body only to slander our neighbor over the after church coffee? Myers blasphemes a God he does not know, but we fail in our duty to a God we do know.
Thereby, the tortured body of Christ suffers.
The God of Christianity does not watch from far off. He comes to suffer with us. God also gives humankind the freedom to reject His will, but does not sit as an impassive judge. Sin, falling short of the mark of what is best, always causes pain. God chooses to experience each wound so that He can judge with understanding and compassion.
Professor Myers harms what he does not understand, but many of us have harmed ourselves and others, and thus Jesus Christ, while knowing what we are doing. Sadly, it will not likely be Professor Myers who causes the suffering Son of God the most pain this year.
Finally, we must defend without reservation Professor Myers’ right to express private opinions. He should not fear for his job at a public university as a result of them. Myers is invincibly ignorant of sophisticated philosophy or theology, but is evidently a fine scientist and teacher. Fortunately for his school and his students, he is paid to teach science and not philosophy or theology.
The public university cannot prosper if we hire a man or woman to teach a subject and then fire them because we find their personal views repugnant. We may protest, argue, and defend our ideas. But history shows that our ideas will prosper best and that our churches are most safe in a society where Professor Myers can say what he wishes.
None of this justifies Myers’ rudeness, his ignorance, or his actions. It does remind us that we have it on good authority that Christ forgives all who harm Him and do not know what they do.
*I should add that in looking closely at his blog I discover to my chagrin that Professor Myers spells his name Myers not Meyers as somehow got stuck in my head and as appeared in the original post.
Sigh.
I once did a post (as a life long Packer fan) where I spelled Favre’s name “Farve” the entire way . . .
I read the PZ blog often enough that there is really no good reason for the error . . .
I even checked the “does Meyers end in a s thing” and somehow missed this silly typographical error.
I apologize to Professor Myers . . . but think my point is just the same!