Relationship Advice

Q. What in the world did the state of Kansas think it was doing by allowing creationism to be taught in the schools–returning to the Dark Ages?

Not exactly, by my reckoning. Even if it did, it seems that the Dark Ages weren’t as bad as they’re cracked up to be. Except they had lighting problems. Compared to global warning, is that so terrible?

Creationists whose conviction that God made things basically just the way they are now, except for breakfast cereals, stoutly reject the theory of evolution’s claim that life emerged through natural selection from primordial ooze. The creationists protest that if the Darwinists erase God as the creator, there goes the biblical neighborhood.

The Darwin crowd, meanwhile, can argue their case scientifically and dub their foes as dreamers and romantics with a feeble grasp on reality. From another direction, many scholars of the Bible think the Scriptures themselves don’t support creationism.

In Kansas they outlawed the teaching of evolution as pure fact, rather than as the theory it is–albeit a theory backed up with loads of evidence. The kids cans still hear all about this in science class. The creationists get their day in court by introducing their theory of how everything began (something evolutionists don’t delve into) and can offer the hypothesis that in the beginning God created all forms, from snails to humans–without necessarily excluding the possibility that life has evolved within those forms.

So creationists receive a platform for their faith theory of a personal creator within Kansas classrooms, while evolutionists go on explaining how life emerged in the details. Which perhaps returns the state only back to the High Middle Ages.

Q. Why don’t we hear more about Jesus’ views on premarital sex?

Compared to our current arbiters of sexual behavior, Drs. Laura and Ruth, Jesus had little to say on the subject. It’s doubtful that if Jesus had a lucrative radio or television show he would have said much more.

Jesus was a Jew who, so far as we know, embraced the accepted the moral codes of his tradition. Sexual relations belonged within the category we called marriage, though marriage was sometimes less rigidly defined than our pristine, Westernized version. So let’s say "committed relationships." For Jesus, it seems, sex was never isolated but was part of human relations in general. Further, he called on his followers to rise above the conventional morality to higher ground–to the Kingdom of God, where the ultimate standard for behavior and thought was love. This is where some Christians believe that the rightness or wrongness of some actions, like premarital sex, can be judged only by the motives and intentions of those involved, whether or not they seek a higher good. Much as this flexibility might appeal in the backseat of an old Mustang, where in the heat of the moment the definition of "highest good" can get slippery, the standard of love is actually pretty tough; it challenges those in the grips of passion to take a great deal of responsibility. How much easier is it simply to say oooops to the inflexible adultery commandment than to search one’s own heart? It’s probably safe to say that Jesus would have seen most premarital sex (and postmarital sex, for that matter) as sorely lacking in blessedness. The highest good is out there, but the tendency to substitute lesser goods and invite larger dangers remains ready to subvert it.

Q. Why did it take the Catholic Church so long to apologize to the Jews and other people the church has persecuted?

Many people–and entire institutions–break out in a rash at the mere thought of saying they’re sorry. Human orneriness is hard to dislodge. If, in addition to that congenital defect, you happen to believe that you have been given the whole, undiluted truth that some people refuse to accept, well, you’ll be inclined to press on without feeling any need to say you make serious errors. Jews have been in the past branded as infidels and suffered egregiously for it. The persecutors acted in the name of divine truth.

The pope has edged just beyond this never-say-you’re-sorry block by allowing that some Catholics have behaved badly in the past. But he’s also reluctant to acknowledge any wrongdoing on the part of the church itself–like corporate officers who fire misbehaving employees while ignoring their own and the company’s role in the nefarious schemes.

It’s an old story. Convinced of our own grasp of what’s right, we deny anything that challenges the sanctity of our righteousness. The pope has shown some humility in breaking the pattern, at least superficially. Much remains to be done.