Women and Work-Life Balance

This paper was written for a course on the Christian life that looked specifically at the theology of work. Right now, I'm pretty sure this is a mediocre paper... but I'm just starting to flesh out these thoughts and any feedback would be appreciated.

Women in the Workforce:

Understanding Work-Life Balance in the Context of Calling

What is the proper role of women in the workforce? How should a Christian woman integrate faith and work, especially when balancing family and career? I find myself struggling with this question personally, and was a bit shocked (and dismayed) to find so little written on women in the workforce from a Christian perspective. While Scripture clearly addresses women working both within and outside the context of the home and marriage, the lack of scholarly articles or biblical exegesis written on the subject is alarming. This is certainly an issue pertinent to both the Church and our larger, secular society.

The work-life balance is a pressing issue. National Public Radio recently featured an hour-long segment on The Diane Rhem Show on this very topic.[1] Guests on the show spoke of the differing attitudes that women and men take toward work and career. Where men tend to see their career paths as ladders with successive rungs, women view their path as waves which ebb and flow. Jennifer Marshal describes this phenomenon in her book, Now and Not Yet, by comparing a man's career trajectory to Tampa, and a woman's to Chicago. Work from a man's perspective remains constant, like the weather in Tampa. For a woman, however, "work is typically variable. A young woman looking forward to marriage has to anticipate some major season changes."[2] Her work-life balance can encompass some drastic season changes, like the weather in Chicago. From my own experience, this rings true. I am pursing my "dream career" in academia, and yet as the prospects of marriage and family become more tangible, I sense a shift in my own desires. There is a willingness to postpone career for family, or at the very least, pursue one part-time over the other. That tension is palpable for women in every season of life, and directly impacts how we see our work, careers, family obligations, and more significantly, how we understand our calling.

This paper aims to understand the Bible's view of women in the workforce, whether inside or outside the home, and how that relates to calling. First, I will examine what biblical passages shed light on how women are to integrate faith and work. Next I will look at what principles can be derived from these passages, and how they can be broadly applied.

Old or New?

Turning to what Scripture teaches about a woman's work-life balance, there are several key Old and New Testament passages. However, the bulk of New Testament passages deal with women in a domestic context. The Haustafeln ("Household Tables" or "Rules for the Household") primarily describe submission in marriage (Col. 3:18-19, Eph. 5:22-33, Titus 2:4-5 and 1 Peter 3:1-7). These passages are intended to give guidance within the home but they do not address how a woman should participate in the public sphere. Other New Testament passages do dictate women's behavior in church life (1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15).

Titus

Titus 2:5 is the only New Testament source which provides some description of a woman's work. The ESV translates οἰκουργούς as "working at home." This is slightly misleading, as the term carries several meanings. It can denote "working at home" but it can also mean "keeper at/of the home", "caring for the house" or "taking care of household affairs." Oἰκουργούς is also a hapax legomenon[3], making it difficult to do word studies within the New Testament corpus. The NIV translates to the phrase "busy at home," however this application becomes even more difficult as it is impossible to know which term in the conjunction carries the most weight: "home" or "busy." Are women to be busy when they are at home? Or are they to be at home, being busy? The New Testament sheds little light on the issue, though there are certainly examples of women "being busy" both inside and outside the home (i.e., Phoebe, Mary and Martha, etc.).

Proverbs 31

Turning then to the Old Testament, we do find two clear examples of women engaged in the workforce. One is the description of a godly wife in Proverbs 31. The other is that of Ruth. As we will see, this pair is closely linked. The woman described at the end of Proverbs is capable, savvy, hard-working, and strong. Her character is excellent (v. 10), more precious than jewels (vs. 11), strong and dignified (vs. 25). Those around her trust her (vs. 11) and praise her (vs. 28, 30). As Bernhard Lang describes, the work of the 'capable wife' of Proverbs 31 is primarily focused on food and clothing.[4] She seeks wool and flax (vs. 13), works with willing hands (vs. 13), brings her food from afar and provides food for her household (vs. 14, 15), uses the distaff and spindle (vs. 19), makes bed coverings and linen garments (vs. 22, 24), sells the garments and sashes to merchants (vs. 24), and oversees the "ways of her household" (vs. 27). She is not idle and her products are profitable (vs. 18, 27). Furthermore, her household does not lack gain (vs. 11), and her lamp does not run out of oil at night (vs. 18), which indicates that she manages the estate well.

Running an estate included the planning, storage, and supervision of the preparation of food. Overseeing or participating in domestic textile production was also the woman's duty in the home. In antiquity, textiles served as a woman's "liquid wealth, for they could be readily converted to cash… women of all classes could weave and earn cash by this activity if necessary."[5] The production of clothing gave women economic power. Lang cites the Jewish midrash, which indicates that "a woman may become wealthy through her spinning (Midrash Bereshit rabbah Ivi 11)."[6] Other 5^th century B.C. Jewish documents describe similar garments to that of Proverbs 31, which wives would bring into their marriage contracts.[7]

The question of whether or not a woman in ancient Hebrew society had economic freedom to make estate decisions is open to debate. Generally, women were not landowners. However, the picture of the Proverbs 31 woman indicates otherwise. Verse 16 indicates that that woman acts on her own authority in considering and executing the purchase of a field. Furthermore, the wife invests in her own asset by developing the field into a vineyard. Lang suggests that "not only the purchase, but also the transformation of the field into a vineyard means that money has to be spent—workers have to be hired to prepare the ground, to build fences or walls, and to do the planting."[8] All of this points to the woman's active involvement in the household estate.

Ruth

Lang sees Proverbs 31 as a poem "celebrating a person bursting with energy, a competent and successful woman of Israel's social elite, recommended as a model to emulate. She must be considered a real woman endowed with credible characteristics."[9] Indeed, it's quite possible that Proverbs 31 is referring to a real woman. In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ruth comes directly after the book of Proverbs. Both Proverbs 31:10 and Ruth 3:11 share the phrase 'ēšet hayil, which is translated as a "wife of noble character" (NIV), "capable wife" (NASB), "excellent wife" (ESV) in Proverbs and "worthy woman" in Ruth. Clearly there is a linking between the description of the Proverbs 31 woman and Ruth, whose own husband calls her 'ēšet hayil.[10] Boaz himself is called hayil (2:1), and while the ESV does justice by translating both 2:1 and 3:11 with "worthy", this does not capture the full picture of the word, which implies valor, strength, and might.[11]

The book of Ruth in the Old Testament is really the story of three women and their individual choices. Naomi, for a period, chooses bitterness and isolation. Orpah chooses the comforts of home. Ruth chooses to actively engage a new culture and new land, leaving behind her family and previous life. Ruth becomes the sole provider for herself and Naomi, and does so in such a way to draw attention to her godly character. Ruth "chose a woman rather than a man as the support of life and gleaned in the field actively (2:2) to support the family on her own. By showing kindness to Naomi, Ruth finally won the respect of Boaz (2:11 and 3:11) and of the women in Bethlehem (4:15)."[12]

Ruth's character traits include loyalty, faithfulness to God and others, a driven work ethic and humbleness. She is never addressed by her name by other characters but is affectionately called "my daughter" throughout the book. What she has done for Naomi is known (2:11), and her display of hesed[13] rattles Boaz and Bethlehem.[14] She takes the initiative to provide even more for Naomi (and her deceased husband's family line) by encouraging Boaz to join her in what Carolyn Custis James calls a "Blessed Alliance." By this, James describes what can occur when men and women work together to advance God's purposes – regardless of marital status or relationship.[15] Ruth is a relational, working woman. She is committed to her mother-in-law, but more importantly, she is driven to serve the Lord with all that she does (2:12).

Ruth's actions and character merit her comparisons with some of Israel's greatest women: Rachel, Leah (4:11), and Tamar (4:12). At the end of the story, the women of Bethlehem gather around Naomi to tell her how blessed she is to have Ruth as a daughter-in-law. They bestow the highest praise on Ruth, calling her better than seven sons (4:15). "Seven is the number for perfection, and sons are the most precious in a patriarchal society. Their appreciation was really saying that no matter how many and how perfect, sons were no better than Ruth."[16] The lineage(s) at the end of the book directly link Ruth with the messianic King David (4:17, 22), placing her in the line of Christ. She is clearly unique. What better woman than Ruth would fit the description of the 'capable wife' of Proverbs 31?[17]

Application of principles

What do we learn from Proverbs 31 and the example of Ruth? This is not the picture of a passive housewife. Ruth is driven, actively seeking provisions for her family, even when it means getting her hands dirty. The Proverbs 31 woman is talented, and uses her business skills to run the family estate and provide for all under her care. But she does so in order to serve the Lord. James points out that while we often think of Ruth as a love story, "We do not think of either woman in terms of mission, nor do we imagine that God is raising both women up for vital kingdom purposes."[18]

We see from Proverbs 31 that this capable woman provides for her household, including her servants, and serves the poor. Her abilities and skills benefit her family and her community. Her influence extends beyond the walls of her house. While much of her actual "work" takes place within the confines of her estate, it is important to remember that in un-industrialized societies, the home was (and still is) the central unit of economic production. A woman "leaving" the home to work did not make much sense.[19] Yet the Proverbs 31 woman is clearly fulfilling her purposes in serving the Lord with all her gifts and talents.

The same is true of Ruth. Her labor of love on behalf of Naomi benefits the entire Bethlehem community. Naomi's hope in the Lord is restored through witnessing His faithfulness through Ruth. Boaz joins the kingdom plan, although no one at the time realize they will be in the royal line of David. They are all eager to serve each other because they are serving the Lord first. Ruth and the 'capable wife' both share the desire to live the way the Lord defines a working woman. "He defined the woman as follows: 'Image bearer; created in God's image and likeness; called to be fruitful and multiply, to rule and subdue.'"[20] As James points out, this is the same definition given to man; both are called to be image bearers for God's kingdom purposes.

This reflects the core principle of Oz Guinness' book, The Call. We are called by the Caller. Ruth reflects this. She leaves her homeland to follow Naomi because she is following God (1:16). She encourages Naomi and Boaz to think outside the box about what God is doing in Bethlehem through them. Ruth is tuned in to what God is doing, and this directs her choice to glean, her interactions with Boaz, and her care for Naomi. She has integrated work and faith both outside and inside the home. The capable wife of Proverbs reflects this as well. All of her works are praise in the gates, because she fears the Lord (31:30-31). The foundation of her strength, dignity, wisdom and kindness are in her service to the One who calls her. She has integrated work and faith both inside and outside the home. Note that while Ruth likely is the prime example of the Proverbs 31 woman, in terms of actual manual labor, Ruth's work takes place outside her home, while the capable wife's work is primarily inside the home (or at least, on the family estate). Yet we cannot say of either that their spheres of influence are limited to their primary labor environments. And both are clearly praised as examples of Godly women to emulate. Their "work" is far more significant that what they do; it is captured in whom they serve.

Ultimately, for a woman to find a work-life balance, her sense of purpose has to be anchored in God.[21] Her outlook is one that embraces multiple callings, so that while situations and status may change, her focus remains on the Caller, and her highest calling as glorifying and enjoying him forever. A woman's highest call is not found in being a wife and mother, inside or outside the home, or even "working at home," but in following the Lord wherever he leads her. "When our identity is anchored in Christ and we have a sense of belonging to Him, He becomes the reference point by which we set the course of our lives."[22] A specific job, a specific relationship, or a certain life-milestone is not the whole of one's calling. Rather, in all aspects of our lives, we should engage our gifts and talents. This includes paid and unpaid work, relationships, service, family, and community activities. Marshall writes, "We should be looking at how God has made us, what gifts and responsibilities we have, and how those mesh with our opportunities to serve Him and others."[23]

Conclusions

Is this approach to calling and work-life balance really unique to women? Guinness outlines "our primary calling as followers of Christ is by him, to him, and for him", and our secondary calling is carrying that out in all we do.[24] Taking this one step further and applying it to women means understanding the constant pull women feel, whether conscious or subconscious, to define themselves by what they are doing instead of who they are in Christ. Marshall recounts the story of a female FBI agent which captures this very tension:

I love my work, but it's fifty hours a week. There is no way I could have a family life and work at what I do now with the same kind of hours. Every time I step into a relationship that looks like it has potential, I have all this angst. I start preparing myself to detach from professional life. Even if I remain a part-time professional, it would be completely different from what I do now. So I go through this battle where I try to envision myself pulling away from my current work life and moving toward family life. Then when the relationship ends, I have to do a reverse of all that.

Ruth and the Proverbs 31 woman speak to this kind of angst. These two Old Testament examples do not "have it all" because they are superwomen. They balance work, life, family, relationships and responsibilities because they answer the call of the Lord first. Their ability to find balance is not based on limiting themselves to working part-time at the office or full-time at home. They do not think of their callings in terms of labels and status, but in terms of glorifying God with their gifts. They do not limit themselves to being fruitful and multiplying, but take an active role in ruling and subduing as well. They answer the highest call of the Caller, finding their identity in image-bearers with kingdom purposes.

---

[1] "Claire Shipman & Katty Kay: "Womenomics"" on The Diane Rhem Show, WAMU 88.5. Original air date June 4, 2009. Information available here: http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/06/04.php#26161

[2] Jennifer Marshall, Now and Not Yet: Making Sense of Single Life in the Twenty-First Century. Multnomah Books, Colorado Springs, CO (2007); pg. 122

[3] This term indicates that the word only occurs once in the New Testament.

[4] Bernhard Lang, "Women's Work, Household and Property in Two Mediterranean Societies: A Comparative Essay on Proverbs XXXI 10-31" in Vetus Testamentum. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden (2004); 188-207

[5] S. Pomeroy in Xenophon, Oeconomicus: A Social and Historical Commentary, with a New Translation by Sarah B. Pomeroy (Oxford, 1994), pp. 62 and 63-64

[6] Lang, 194

[7] Lang, 194

[8] Lang, 203

[9] Lang, 189

[10] C. Marvin Pate, J. Scott Duvall, J. Daniel Hays; The Story of Israel: A Biblical Theology. Downer's Grove, InterVarsity Press, 2004. pg. 59

[11] See Julie L.C. Chu, "Returning Home: The Inspiration of the Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth for Taiwanese Women," Semeia, 78 (1997), 47-53; and Carolyn Custis James, The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough to Break the Rules. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (2008); 95.

[12] Chu, 50

[13] Hesed is the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament to describe the Lord's covenant faithfulness. The term is used in the book of Ruth to describe Ruth's actions towards Naomi (3:10). See James, 116-117

[14] James, 176

[15] Naomi, too, is part of this Blessed Alliance. See James, pg. 103-104.

[16] Chu, 50

[17] Boaz's discourse at the city gate in chapter 4 also parallels the husband of the Proverbs 31 wife.

[18] James, 62

[19] Rosemary Radford Ruether, "Home and Work: Women's Roles and the Transformation of Values," in Theological Studies, 36 (1975); 647-659

[20] James, 65

[21] Marshall, 106

[22] Marshall, 108

[23] Marshall, 119

[24] Os Guinness, The Call: Finding and Fulfilling The Central Purpose of Your Life. W Publishing Group, Nashville, Tennessee, (2003); 31

Leaving the lights on

I try to be green. Ok, maybe not green... I don't drive a Hybrid or walk to work. But I want to be green. I recycle and reuse. I Freecycle. I rinse out my coffee mug at work instead of using the paper cups. My roommate noticed that I reuse Christmas gift bags and tissue. And, until New Year's Day, I was adamant about conserving energy. I turn off lights when I leave a room. I unplug my coffee maker when it's not in use. I turn off the power strip to my computer and printer at night. I use energy efficient bulbs wherever possible.

You get the idea.

On New Year's Day I was having dinner with a friend. While walking back to my car, my roommate called. We'd been burglarized. Our basement sliding door was kicked in, shattered glass everywhere. She didn't know what had been taken or where my cats were. I raced home to find my computer still sitting on my desk and my cats hiding under the bed.

I live in that basement. The den walks out to our back patio. My bedroom is a straight shot from the sliding door. I study, watch movies, sleep and eat here.

My family heirloom rings were in my sock drawer. I admit, this was not a smart place to keep them. But one does not think about being robbed until it happens. They are gone, along with a few pieces from my roommate's room and my camera. Perhaps they will show up someday in a pawn shop.

I leave lights on now. The back porch light stays on all night. We leave a light on in the kitchen at all times, and set other lights on timers. We bought door and window alarms, locks, chains, and peep holes. I try not to be angry that our landlord is not reimbursing us for them. I try to imagine having compassion for the robbers. I try to humanize them in my mind. But I lock my door at night and lock the door beyond that door. I know in my head that statistically we are not likely to be targeted again. I know that I only have six months left in this lease. I know that we are lucky things were not worse.

But I also know that the robbers know what I look like. They took my camera. They have seen pictures of me. They have been through my room. They took the pillow case off my bed to shove my family inheritance in. If I saw them walking down the street, they would know it was me but I would not know it was them.

I try to imagine what grace looks like here, now, in this place. I cannot go back and picture grace in the moment of the crime - If I had been home, sitting in my room, what would I have done? I cannot imagine that, so I move forward. I vacuum everyday. Someday soon the tiny, shiny beads of glass will finally disappear. The anger will subside. I will sleep without worrying about the doors and windows. I will be prepared to confront or comfort the robbers, given the opportunity. I will extend grace. Someday.

For now, I am leaving the lights on.

Finals Humor

Even seminary professors have a sense of humor. This was the final page of my review sheet for Genesis-Joshua. Got a good giggle out of me.

----

If you feel overwhelmed by this review sheet, consider the possible alternative questions that have been used in previous final exams:

· Take the measurements of the Ark of Noah and build a miniature at 1/100 scale. Be sure to include the “souls” within the Ark.

· Find a nonbeliever and save him/her.

· As an application of Genesis 1, create life. You are free to choose the “kind” of life to create.

· Memorize the Book of Deuteronomy. Recite it to your proctor and have them sign in the space provided: _______________________________________(proctor signature).

· Solve the conundrum of the Divine Name YHWH. Leave no questions unanswered.

· Reenact the Day of Atonement. Be sure to follow the details of the garments of the High Priest. You need not to offer an actual sacrifice.

· Like Joshua 10:13, stop the sun. Once you do so, you are free to have the resulting time extension until the sun continues in its rotation.

· Predict the second coming of Christ. Prooftext your answer by using the Book of Genesis only.

Authority and asking "Why?"

When someone who is your respected elder does/says something inappropriate, do you get to ask "Why?" Is it legitimate to question them on it? What if they are your boss? Or your boss' wife?

I am told that I don't get to ask "Why." That my professional opinion doesn't get a say in the matter, and that my personal feelings are of no consequence, and that I should just humbly submit to their authority.

What if I am convinced that biblically what they've done is wrong? And that biblically, am I not to let someone "look down on me because I am young"? What does that actually mean or look like?

Apologetics Application

When considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one isn't.

- Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Introduction

For the past two months, I have met with a small group of "pub intellectuals" for a book discussion on Tim Keller's The Reason for God. We began over beers and fries though as a young Muslim couple joined the group, soda replaced suds but the discussions were not hampered. SpeakEasy, the name for our eclectic group, coincided with this course on apologetics. Putting into practice the transcendental method was both the most intellectually challenging and rewarding endeavor I've pursued in seminary thus far. In part, this was due to the company of my roommate, Allison. Her thorough thoughtfulness and sharp inquiries have helped refine my intellectual commitments to Christianity, as well as highlight the true significance of apologetics.

This response paper examines the brief book by Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation.[1] Allison recommended this book and SpeakEasy will pick this up as our next study come January. This paper will examine Harris' critique of Christianity using the presuppositional method outlined in William Edgar's Reasons of the Heart: Recovering Christian Persuasion. Edgar's title hints at what I've learned over the past few months: apologetics, while persuasive and often methodical, is about the heart in as much as it is about the mind. Paradigms, worldviews and bias collide when reason is put to faith, and only through uncovering ultimate heart commitments can we effectively communicate the Gospel message of Christ.

Harris' Heart

Letter, written in response to reactions by the faithful to Harris' first tome, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, outlines much of what drives Harris to conclude that organized religion is not only irrationally but evil.[2] Prior to deconstructing Harris' arguments against religion, we must understand his adherence to secular humanism. What drives Sam Harris? Harris values religious systems that are more philosophical in nature, like Jainism and Buddhism. He also values spiritual experiences, himself having been transformed by an encounter with Ecstasy.[3] He values morality, criticizing Christianity and the Bible on moral issues, sometimes rightly so.

He never provides a basis for humanist morality, yet he evidently needs morality to make sense of his world. He is highly concerned with what he labels "real morality." He states,
"For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in the world… Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to happiness than hate is."[4] Harris asserts this in an objective claim. Clearly it isn't.[5] Happiness is relatively defined and relatively experienced, and while it sounds rational that love be more desirable than hate, not every human experience supports this fact-claim.[6] Regardless, this statement illustrates Harris' need for objective moral reality, and his desire to reconcile human experience with his belief system.

Like many secular humanists and new atheists, Harris holds fast to reason. This is his primary concern with the morality of the Bible: it doesn't rationally make sense to him. Discrepancies cannot be plausible in the very word of God. Harris takes his disapproval of the scientific fallacies of the Bible a step further than most critics, arguing that not only is the science flawed, but that if this were the very word of God, why does it not include inarguable mathematical proofs as evidence of its divine origin?[7]

Harris' ultimate objection to religion is that it "divorce[s] morality from the reality of human and animal suffering."[8] Critics of Letter have said that Harris is essentially calling Christians, Jews and Muslims hypocrites but that is not actually where his objection lies. His argument against the morality of the Bible is twofold: one, if Christians (and Jews) actually practiced the law of the Old Testament, it would be morally reprehensible; and two, organized Christianity has incorrectly made moral issues about actions, not consequences.

He gives multiple examples of this divorce, two of which are worth noting. The first is that of slavery. Harris argues that the Abolitionists, while morally right, were biblically wrong.[9] For Harris, the biblical acceptance (and Old Testament approval) of slavery indicates that the Bible is morally flawed – and that it is not necessary to derive the basic principle of human dignity. "The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, enjoying the same capacity for suffering and happiness, he will understand that it is patently evil to won them and treat them like farm equipment."[10] Epistemologically, it's unclear how one comes to recognize this from Harris' view.

His second example relates to the impact of Christian attitudes about sex to health policies. He cites abortion, embryonic stem cell research, honor killings and AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa – all hindered by religiously influenced policies. While his criticism of Christian AIDS policies in Africa is more reflective of Catholic thought, he persuasively argues that prohibiting condom distribution and focusing on abstinence-only education does contribute to the increase in human suffering. His objection boils down to this: religions have made morality about bad actions, regardless of context or outcome.[11]

This is a compelling and convicting critique. If anything, it illustrates that Christians have done a poor job of creating redemptive culture and have often (incorrectly) associated suffering with punishment. However, Harris does the opposite: he doesn't see outcomes as consequences (i.e., teen pregnancy) – only as "suffering."[12] But these examples show the underling concern for Harris that "the link between religion and "morality" – so regularly proclaimed and so seldom demonstrated – is fully belied here, as it is wherever religious dogma supersedes moral reasoning and genuine compassion."[13]

In order to fully understand Harris' heart commitments, we have to look outside the Letter.[14] As previously mentioned, Harris accepts spiritualism as a viable – rational – option. While the Letter focuses more on his adherence to evolutionism, elsewhere Harris makes similar claims about the plausibility of spiritualism. And we've seen above his commitment to rationalism as well. How does he reconcile all of these views? The search for concrete facts and objective morality seems counter to Harris' own opinion of spiritual experiences. His approval of spiritualism is captured in the telling statement that spiritual experiences are "not just emotional but cognitive and conceptual."[15] Evidently Harris feels that there are cognitive and conceptual flaws in Christianity which do not appear in spiritualism. He cannot get past the intellectual hurdle of Christianity, yet he offers no argument for the cognitive and conceptual validity of spiritualism.

Making Contact

Where is Sam Harris' God-consciousness? At some point, every non-Christian presupposition fails; the foundation will not hold up under scrutiny. Because we are all created in God's image and part of the same creation, we share in the same metaphysical experience as non-believers. We all carry a certain sense of deity, which informs us of the dignity of human beings.[16] We believe that dignity stems from being God's image bearers. How does Sam Harris explain the value humans?

He doesn't. Granted, that is not the intent of the Letter. Yet, he has a need to explain moral behavior. He also recognizes a need for moral guidance. His critique against Christianity is that "anyone who believes that the Bible offers the best guidance we have on questions of morality has some very strange ideas about either guidance or morality."[17] He offers Jainism as an (the only?) example of a livable, ethical, non-theist system. Again, Harris fails to offer his own method of determining the validity of guidance or a moral system.

He offers spiritualism as a means, much to the chagrin of his cohorts. Aside from being a terrible argument against organized religion, spiritualism reveals Harris' need to use a questionably rational filter for his own reality – exactly the same critical assessment he lobbies at monotheism. Even his own fellow thinkers critique Harris' reasoning on this, saying "the problem is that rather than subjecting this mystical realm to the same rigorous analysis as that of religion, the new atheism seems convinced by it's pseudo-scientific claims, and even acts as a cheerleader for this spurious way of thinking."[18]

Foundation Failure

Where does Harris' line of reasoning fall apart? Where does his argument ultimately lead? Harris clearly falls into the rationalist camp: everything in the universe is rational. However, there is no solid way to prove that trusting in your own reason is rational; it's actually irrational because it cannot be proven rationally. Harris' strong moral compass offers a glimpse into his thinking, and his need to find meaning in his world. But, when pushed to live out his philosophy, he can't.

The significant flaws in Harris' argument are twofold: he attacks Christianity with the very hate of which he argues religion is the generator, and he does not live out his own philosophy. David Segal relates from an interview with Harris that "because Christians and Jews cling to their "delusions," they are in no position to criticize Muslims for theirs."^[19] And Harris is in no position to cling to his. He is fundamentalist in his treatment of religions, and commits the same errors of those he critiques – being a literalist,[20] cherry-picking, ignoring context and culture, etc. He dogmatically holds to his convictions of atheism, rationalism, evolutionism and spiritualism, while exhorting that "it is time Christians like yourself stop pretending that a rational rejection of your faith entails the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma."[21] He systematically ignores social, cultural and political factors, choosing to blame all failures of humanity on religions.[22] Wouldn't a more rational and consistent argument be that we are simply still evolving and have not achieved the height of social, cultural or political superiority? I suspect Harris would say that until religions fall by the wayside, these advancements are not possible. Yet, that seems to limit the achievements of rational, evolving man by ideologies which clearly (to Harris) are inferior and should be abandoned immediately.

Second, Harris' irrational approval of spiritual encounters as vehicles for genuine truths is internally inconsistent with his rationalism. Humanists point out that "[t]he problem is not that Harris holds these beliefs, but that he wants to convince us that they are the very height of rationality."[23] Rationally and logically, Harris cannot hold religions up to one standard and his own beliefs to another. He argues, "human standards of morality are precisely what you use to establish God's goodness,"[24] yet he offers no rational standards to establish his own morality. Harris proposes, "Everyone recognizes that to rely upon 'faith' to decide specific questions of historical fact is ridiculous," nonetheless he offers no evidence of his "facts" supporting spiritualism.[25]

He calls upon humans to "meet our emotional needs without embracing the preposterous."[26] What is more preposterous: that I believe in a historical document, with historical, literary and cultural evidence that can be studied by all, and that provides a solution to the world's present state, or that I can ascertain genuine truths – indiscernible and unverifiable to others – during the height of an illicit drug-educed spiritual encounter? Harris even admits that while "there is no question that it is possible for people to have profoundly transformative experiences," it is equally plausible "for them to misinterpret these experiences, and to further delude themselves about the nature of reality."[27] One has to wonder if Harris has ever considered the possibility that his Ecstasy encounter, which launched his quest to uncover the meaning of life, has ever been self-evaluated as a potential delusional experience.

The Invitation

Harris grasps the "scandalously particular" nature of the Christian story.[28] He recognizes the arrogance of the Christian claim that "the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death."[29] Much of this stems from his dogmatic desire for the Creator of the universe to reveal himself in the Bible through scientific examples. He is troubled that "a single sentence" of Scripture "could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century."[30] For someone who wants a historically reliable source document, this is an odd thing to be troubled by. But Harris would prefer the Bible to "make perfectly accurate predictions about human events" or "contain a chapter on mathematics."[31] Obviously, Harris is not concerned with literary genre.

But, what good would it do for God to deliver us a book of cures for cancer, scientific instructions for electricity and precise mathematical equations? Does this provide a better basis for morality? Harris accuses Christians of detaching morality from reality, which ignores the relational nature of the Bible's ethical guidelines. The Bible's prescripts for morality do not exist outside time and space; it is precisely because God enters into the story of humanity that makes the moral code relevant to reality. Christianity accurately describes human reality, including the dignity and depravity of man. It also offers a solution that relates specifically to the problem in the person of Christ, whom Harris largely ignores.[32]

Harris' ethical obstacle to Christianity is summarized as such: "If you are right to believe that religious faith offers the only real basis for morality, then atheists should be less moral than believers."[33] Because this is not indicative of reality, Harris makes the false assumption that since atheists are not less moral, religion cannot be the basis for morality. Not only is this a non sequitur, it misreads the Christian message. If we are all created in God's image, reason is available to all, thus we are all capable of making moral decisions regardless of our basis for morality. It comes as no surprise to me that my roommate Allison is a profoundly moral and trustworthy person – my basis for morality informs me that she is competent of this.

Harris holds that there is at least one quasi-religious system extant that provides a moral compass – Jainism. Adhering to the principles of Jainism, it is impossible for anyone to behave immorally.[34] Yet this too makes morality about actions, not intentions or state of being, a criticism he lobbies about Christianity. Theoretically, one could be an outwardly perfect Jain, all the while driven by prideful or sardonic motivations. The point being is that no human being can perfectly adhere to any moral code; we are deficient in our morality regardless of our individual belief system. Christianity recognizes this as the ailment of humanity, and offers a genuine solution: you can't be perfect but God will be on your behalf.

Ironically, Harris shows hints that he "gets" this. He knows that if we are to take the Bible seriously, both the moral standard (perfection) and the punishment for failure (death) cannot be changed.[35] He also recognizes the profound impact of self-sacrifice in achieving good. He states: "While feeling love for others is surely one of the greatest sources of our own happiness, it entails a very deep concern for the happiness and suffering of those we love. Our own search for happiness, therefore, provides a rationale for self-sacrifice and self denial."[36] Since Harris equates happiness with moral goodness, let's say then that because God loves us – and is morally good – his goodness (happiness) "entails a deep concern for the happiness… of those [he] love[s]." According to Harris, this then offers the rationale for self-sacrifice. How then, does the Cross not make rational sense to Harris? If God knows that our happiness cannot be achieved through man's adherence to a moral standard, and that he can solve that dilemma with self-sacrifice, doesn't that make the Christian story at least rationally plausible?

It's possible that Sam Harris could have a spiritual encounter that will someday lead him to consider the rational probability of Christianity again. And my concern for Harris' heart commitments is genuine. However, my more pressing concern is for Allison's heart commitments. Understanding Harris has helped me understand her (although she doesn't make the same logical flaws he does!). It is not just because eternal consequences are at stake. My moral system informs me that Allison is created in God's image, fallen like me, deserving of dignity, and in need of a relational, rational morality to make sense of her world. When she proof-read my paper, she remarked that the strongest argument against Harris is his lack of explanation for his moral system. I wonder what Harris would think to know that an intelligent, reasonable Christian and an intelligent, reasonable atheist can, in fact, have a "discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty."[37]

---

[1] Harris is focused primarily on Christianity but includes Judaism and Islam. He argues against liberals, moderates and fundamentalists alike.

[2] Harris, 47.

[3] David Segal, "Atheist Evangelist: In His Bully Pulpit, Sam Harris Devoutly Believes That Religion Is the Root of All Evil," Washington Post. October 26, 2006.

[4] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation. Vintage Books (New York), 2008, 23-24.

[5] At least, it is impossible to prove.

[6] Specifically, I am thinking of individual security which, to some, may be more valuable than love.

[7] Harris, 60.

[8] Harris, 25.

[9] Harris, 17.

[10] Harris, 18.

[11] Harris, 28.

[12] Harris, 28.

[13] Harris, 32.

[14] This is due in part to the purpose and scope of the Letter.

[15] Meera Nanda, "Spirited Away: Some atheists start to believe anything after they give up believing in God," New Humanist.

[16] Edgar, class notes.

[17] Harris, 14.

[18] Nanda, "Spirited Away."

[19] Segal, "Atheist Evangelist."

[20] Segal, "Atheist Evangelist."

[21] Harris, 42-43, emphasis original.

[22] Harris, 44.

[23] Nanda, "Spirited Away."

[24] Harris, 55

[25] Harris, 67. He does offer evidence for evolutionism, and elsewhere relies heavily on Richard Dawkins for explaining the links between evolution and human morality. cf. p. 73. No where (that I've found) does he offer a rational explanation for spiritual experiences.

[26] Harris, 88.

[27] Harris, 89.

[28] Edgars, class notes.

[29] Harris, 74, emphasis original.

[30] Harris, 60.

[31] Harris, 60.

[32] My arguments for Christianity mentioned here are borrowed from my pastor, Scott Seaton. He laid out his reasons for Christianity during the SpeakEasy book study.

[33] Harris, 38.

[34] Harris, 23.

[35] Harris, 22.

[36] Harris, 24.

[37] Harris 87.