Reinstituting Universal Service

I have lived almost all of my life in the United States and have watched all sorts of unfortunate events take place. Just after I entered the world Kennedy was assassinated. In following years I watched and listened to the misfortunes of the Vietnam War, the Korean War and many other conflicts around the world.

I have been stunned as terror continues to strike so many parts of the world. The events of 9/11 caused me a great deal of alarm as they did most everybody else. Even so, I feel that events right now are more worrisome than anything I have experienced before.

Our sworn enemies are now politically unified – at least to a degree that transcends local fanaticism. They have resources and cross national borders without detection. We like to think that the Islamic State is centered in Syria. Yesterday a prominent politician confidently announced that the “snake’s head” residing in Syria should be cut off. The implication being that the emerging reptilian threat could be contained and controlled in a local and foreign place.

I disagree. Islamic fundamentalism has metastasized to the far reaches of the world. Persons of various (East and West) nationalities are joining their ranks. Some of these recent recruits are just out for adventure. Others are clearly looking for an ideal to fight for. Quite frankly it isn’t hard to see their point – the Western world (and most prominently America) with its immoral materialism is an enemy to be dealt with.

We have an ever-expanding population of disillusioned youth that believes America is some sort of canker, much like Jefferson described the urban sores of his time. These individuals have never experienced or never been taught the many virtues of this nation – nor have they understood the urgent global need for a true American exceptionalism.

Their idealism, backed by well-funded Islamic extremists, is now a threat within our own borders. It is a threat funded by our own petroleum interests. And it is a threat of greater significance than the terrorism of yesterday’s headlines. It is time that we start thinking seriously about defending ourselves against its threats.

Security measures in airports are maybe helpful once in a while. More often they are a waste of time. International posturing against global threats are inevitable but do little to protect us against unknown conspiracies at home. We continue to place far too much faith in the band aid protections of recent legislative opportunism.

It is time that we start preparing ourselves for the many looming threats that continue to accumulate.  One act of preparation that I think we should seriously consider is a reinstitution of universal service – something similar to the program ex-president Theodor Roosevelt tried to promote during the international uncertainties of early 20^th Century America.

Roosevelt was quite exacerbated by many pacifist organizations that insisted on disarming America and making our country an example of non-resistance. Of course we dream of peace and Roosevelt acknowledged peace as a primary virtue. But he insisted that peace had to be earned. Peace, he believed, was a product of military preparation. And however uneasy we may feel with an implied belligerence in his arguments, the 20^th Century has not proven him wrong.

In his short classic, Fear God and Take Your Own Part, Roosevelt called for military training for all American boys. This training was to happen as part of a young man’s normal high school curriculum during the ages of 16 and 18. It didn’t require active duty. But it was meant to prepare the nation in case a need presented itself. In the end, his pleas were forgotten in the developments leading up to World War I. But we make a mistake by ignoring them today. In modified form, his ideas could save us a great deal of suffering.

In fact a program of universal service would do a lot of things. Imagine a situation where high school students all across the land spent several hours every weekday during summer vacation learning about terrorist threats. Most importantly each student would learn to pay attention to their surroundings. They would listed to hushed conversations in a grocery isle. They would watch an abandoned vehicle. They would notice the contents of suspicious-looking individuals and backpacks at public events.

In short we would have a nation of observers that would know what to do in case they did come across something suspicious. They would know whom to call. They would take mental notes so they could identify suspects. They would pay close attention to license plates and behaviors. They would know how to use their phones to alert officials.

Other benefits would also accrue. In a nation of great diversity, we would regain a unity that has been missing for decades. We would teach minorities of their civic duties. And of many things they (and most of us) take for granted: I mean that America is a blessed place that needs to be defended.

President Obama is about to address the Nation on the existing threat of the Islamic State. Undoubtedly he will tell us what the government is planning to do. He will probably nod at a shared responsibility. But in the end he will most-likely tell us that we are in good hands – his hands and the hands of our trained military. He will assure us that nations around the world will join together in ridding ourselves of this arising threat. But pay attention because all of these assurances will no-doubt depend on the wisdom of others: other governments, other agencies, other citizens.

How nice it would be if, instead, we could all take part in protecting ourselves. Our young people would have something inspiring to do. We would come together as a nation. Our confusion over gun rights and the significance of the Second Amendment in 21^st Century America would all but disappear. And we would watch as neighborhood after neighborhood succeeded in watching out for themselves and for their own families.

 

I think it’s time to dust off an old argument from a former gentleman who loved America. It’s time to train our youth on what it means to defend freedom. It’s time to fear God and take an active part. It’s time to implement a national program of preparation and training instead of sitting back in panic as we watch the enemy scare us according to their own plans. We can do much more.

References 

My copy of Fear God and Take Your Own Part was published by Gryphon Corporation in 2012.

The New Mormon Studies Review and the Passing of an Age

I guess I’m getting old enough to understand that I have lived through historically significant times. What used to be current events are now my personal (should I say biased?) memories of the past. I have just recently come face-to-face with this reality as my son Spencer handed me the first volume of the new (and much anticipated) Mormon Studies Review (Volume 1, 2014).

I have been eager to read this new issue for many months now. As a regular subscriber to The FARMS Review (which had just recently changed its name to Mormon Studies Review), FARMS Review of Books, and Review of Books on the Book of Mormon – all of which (together) comprise a continuous publication that began in late 1980’s – I had been receiving notices that the next issue had been put on hold while new formatting and editorial changes were being made. The new Review was scheduled to come out by the end of this year (2013). And indeed it has.

I realize that it may be presumptuous of me to comment on the recent changes. I have never been privy to the decisions that have directed any of the previous forms of the Review. My perspective is simply one of an interested reader – albeit a reader of decades. And it is with this limitation in mind that I consider this important LDS publication through my own historical lens.

In truth, the new publication has left me feeling a bit nostalgic. I discovered the earlier versions of the Review during the formative years of my under-graduate and graduate education at BYU. From an academic standpoint, I have grown up with the Review.

In the mid 1980’s I had just recently returned from my mission and had stumbled upon my first volume of Nibley’s opera while foraging in the Harold B. Lee Library for something religiously substantial to read. This first encounter with Professor Nibley’s work was a real life changing experience for me, just as it has been for hundreds (if not thousands) of others.

This was during the time when the newly formed Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies had joined efforts with Deseret Book to publish The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. In 1989, the year I graduated with my Master’s Degree, I received a copy of Volume 1 of the Collected Works from my parents for my birthday.

That year (1989) also marked the beginning of the Review (called then the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon). And, in hindsight, it is obvious how I have come to associate both the Review and the works of Nibley in a common light. Both (together) have virtually defined Mormon apologetics for over half a century. Yet this admission almost seems to be an understatement. Beyond defining Mormon apologetics, they have come to define a large part of Mormon scholarship to a rapidly expanding world of educated Latter-day Saints. The Review, in particular, has been one of only a few venues that faithful Latter-day Saint scholars have had available to them.

And this has been beneficial. But, as I can see now, it has also been limiting. It was immensely satisfying to emerging academics, like me, to see that there were legitimate answers to our critics. We could continue our scholarly subjects even as we continued true to our faith. Indeed, our scholarly pursuits could often be seen as strengthening our faith. We developed a real regard for the scripture in the 88^th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants (verse 118) that encourages us to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith”.

I should add here a note on the significance of this to young people of the Church. Most emerging scholars come into their own during the very impressionable years of their 20’s. This is a period of important spiritual development, a period when students rely heavily on mentors – especially academic mentors (such as major professors, committee members, teachers, and other capable adults), and a period when academic zeal can get away from the best of us and relegate the importance of the First Commandment to a side-bar in our lives.

Ecumenicalism can have the unfortunate effect of minimizing faith or of making faith a matter of relative preference. Faithful arguments – especially scholarly arguments in defense of faith – have a way of balancing this tendency. They are also the arguments that endure where current scholarly trends often become dated. There is a reason that Christian apologetics has been around from nearly the beginning of the faith. And it is a needed endeavor among Latter-day Saints today even as it was nearly two millennia ago among the first Christians. 

There is a recognized place for scholarly apologetics among our other Christian friends. The ecumenical journals First Things and Touchstone are two that come readily to mind. These journals are filled with a Christian scholarship that is not afraid to defend the faith. Are we unwilling (or unable), as Latter-day Saints, to do the same?  

Or maybe the time is not right. Perhaps now is the time for bridge-building, for mending some of the relationships that have been strained and broken through decades of misunderstanding. Mormonism certainly lends itself to American ecumenicalism. If we have to put or defensive hats in the closet in order to fully engage with this needed dialogue among our religious peers, maybe it is for the best.

But what is to become of our Latter-day Saint tradition of apologetics at this stage of the game? Will the changing focus of the Review absorb this history of debate into a more conciliatory dialogue? Will Mormon detractors become less vitriolic, or will we simply ignore them? Maybe these are not even the right questions.

To the extent that the new publication refuses to review misinformed and sloppy anti-Mormon publications, it will be providing a needed service. This I see as a positive development if, in fact, the first issue is any indication of things to come. Sadly, however, I don’t think it likely that deeply flawed anti-Mormon publications will stop being produced. The average Latter-day Saint will continue to be confronted with critics and will need to look for answers about specific texts. I’m not sure that the new Review will meet this need. For readers that want a balanced and nuanced treatment of Mormon publications, the new Review will be a clear improvement. For those needing a simpler clarification of a text – spelled out in more black and white language – some other resource will need to become available. Perhaps we will rely on the internet, and this may be sufficient. But it may also leave many of us disappointed, if not misled.   

The new Review is a publication for scholars – Mormon and non-Mormon alike. But it also serves the Mormon Church as a resource to promote inter-faith dialogue. It is very well named – focusing, as it does, on “Mormon studies”.  But it will not be lost on previous readers that this focus, now long in coming, will be seen to contrast with Mormon apologetics. We will not be seeing any more classic defenses of the faith in this new Review. Any defense that we do see will be more of a nod to scholarly decorum than to a reasoned faith.

In the final essay of the new Review, Blair Hodges finds Mormon Studies extending back as far as Leonard Arrington and Moses Rischin, then proceeding to authors such as Grant Underwood and Jan Shipps, and continuing with Richard Bushman, among others. These are impressive names, for sure, but it is quite a different pedigree from what the “former” Review would claim. As an organ of Mormon apologetics, the former Review carried on a tradition that extended back at least as far as Nibley’s Lehi in the Desert and The World of the Jaredites (published by the Deseret News Press in 1952). 

So while I am impressed with the new Review – with both the wisdom and timing of this new direction – I am also saddened at the passing of an age. And I’m somewhat worried about where this will send our would-be Mormon apologists. Is it too soon to recognize a now erstwhile period of classic Mormon apologetics? Maybe we should call it the “Age of Nibley” – but this sounds too patronizing. Maybe this former tradition will move in another and equally profitable direction. Or maybe the significance of the period, and the demise of classic Mormon apologetics, will go un-noticed and fall from our interest altogether. I guess we will have to wait and see. In the meantime I wish the new Mormon Studies Review and its custodians a healthy and long-lived success. And even more to the point – I look forward to a long and positive dialogue with our non-Mormon colleagues. Bon Voyage!

How Doubt Can Save Your Faith

There is much talk these days about doubt. Much of the reason, at least for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), is the recent article in the New York Times about Hans Mattson’s doubts and uncertainties.

Mattson was an Area Authority for the Mormon Church in Europe, a position of no small sway. He had grown in his understanding of the Church the way most Mormons do: by attending classes and reading church-recommended literature. Unfortunately, this doctrinal fare left him without answers when he came upon anti-Mormon literature that he didn’t understand. This burden seems to have had a very troubling effect on his faith. I feel bad for him.

As a recently returned missionary, I was once asked by a former school-mate to attend a meeting with some friends. When I arrived I got a surprise. The room was occupied by several adults that all had an axe to grind. They all wanted to expose me to the errors of my church and convert me to their own brand of religion. They were persistent and didn’t concern themselves one bit about the stress that this attack on my faith might cause me. I left the meeting unable to answer many of their questions. I had never been exposed to them before. They weren’t questions that ever came up in my seminary, Sunday school or priesthood classes. I was a bit traumatized.   

Some months later I happened upon a volume by Hugh Nibley titled Lehi in the Desert. This is a book showing the remarkable similarities between the Near East (during the time of the Book of Mormon journey of Lehi and his family) and the incidents narrated in the first Book of Nephi in the Book of Mormon. The book is an argument against those who had criticized the Book of Mormon for being naïve and uninformed – and thence false. I couldn’t put the book down. Here at last was a Latter-day Saint scholar who wasn’t afraid to respond to our critics. In coming years I would continue devouring Nibley’s books and many other writings by informed Mormon scholars. 

Nibley wrote a lot of things and his work catalyzed a small army of Mormon apologists with expertise in various fields of study. Much of this work has been published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), an organization that I have followed for decades.

Within the FARMS Review (and it’s various other names) lie hundreds of responses to Mormon detractors. One can read these responses without having to burden oneself with the negativity of anti-Mormon authors themselves. All it takes is a little exposure to this literature to realize that we Latter-day Saints have a lot of answers to the many criticisms of our detractors. And these answers are quite impressive, and often faith promoting. Sadly, though, very few members of the church take the time to read any of this – or even know that this literature exists. This is even true of some church leaders, as Mattson’s example shows.

It is time that we give a bit more heed to these issues. This is, in fact, the scriptural admonition for those of us that become exposed to deceit: “Wherefore, beware lest ye be deceived…” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:8); “Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods…” (Deuteronomy 11:16); “And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.” (my italics).

What exactly does “heed” mean? It means to pay attention to, to take notice of, or to be careful about. And paying close attention to the swirl of opinions and deceit all around us is something we very much need. But what I want to specifically point out is that playing close attention also involves a healthy dose of doubt. I know this will be denied by many well-meaning and faithful persons. Doubt, after all, is what the scriptures tell us to avoid. Before you discard my argument, however, consider a couple of the most important definitions of doubt.

Doubt can be a denial of, or a hesitation about, divine things. This is the meaning we normally intend when we contrast doubt with faith. This is what Bruce R. McConkie means when he writes, “Faith and belief are of God; doubt and skepticism are of the devil.”

But doubt can also involve a healthy amount of questioning. Doubt, according to John Henry Newman, is just one of three ways of holding a proposition. “A question is the expression of a doubt… To doubt, for instance, is not to see one’s way…” If we are not to be deceived; and if the greatest modern sources of deception lie in the swelter of specious religious advocacy groups and their ever-increasing volumes of propaganda; than taking heed must involve a great deal of skepticism. In a word, giving heed needs to involve this questioning form of doubt.

Yet, sadly, the majority of Latter-day Saints are not at all prepared to take this kind of heed. And the by-product of this lack is a vulnerability to deceit.

I have been watching this happen over a number of years in my own extended family. It is a painful thing to see. The process is now almost too obvious to me: a faithful member of the Church comes across some anti-Mormon literature; The information comes as a great shock, which is often followed by pain and a feeling of betrayal, which is then often followed by a falling away from the faith.

In the cases I am aware of, the shock of discovering critical arguments about the Church is caused primarily because of a lack of previous exposure to these arguments. It comes because we have not taught are youth to question for ourselves. It may be true (it is certainly true) that Mormon doctrine requires that we find answers for ourselves. But it is also sadly true that we often give only one narrative to our varied history. We never tell our youth that other people see things differently than we do. We don’t ask our youth to give heed to potential challenges.

This may sound critical. I guess it is. I don’t mean to be completely negative though. We, as members of the Church, do a marvelous job of encouraging everyone to find truth by seeking and doing. This is clearly the pattern outlined in sacred literature. But following the spirit and proceeding through our uncertainties with an active faith are the second part of avoiding deception. The first part is to give heed. And this is the part we stand in great need of improving. Without it, our friends and loved-ones will continue to be shocked by falsehoods and partial truths and then lose their faith. It is certainly time to start questioning a little more. We need to feel comfortable doubting all these claims.

Let’s look a little more closely at a few words. Let’s compare the words faith and credulity. Faith is confidence, trust, or experiential belief. It carries with it a motivational mindset. It is the underlying foundation of all action, as we learn in the Lectures on Faith. Credulity, on the other hand, is an over readiness to believe, or a disposition to believe on weak or insufficient grounds.

These two words stand in contrast to the two concepts we’ve just been considering, I mean doubt and disbelief. Where doubt involves questioning and a certain tentativeness; disbelief, like credulity, is quicker to proceed – or perhaps quicker to draw conclusions. Both disbelief and credulity are often poorly informed. Doubt, on the other hand (at least in Newman’s sense), is cautious and looks for more answers as it proceeds.

We love the innocence of children. We see a hint of the divine in their purity and sense the light of Christ in their countenance. And Christ has asked us to be more like them. But children can often be credulous. And we might mistakenly assume that in our modeling of children, we are expected to blindly believe as they often do.

Paul was himself quite worried about this among the Corinthian saints. “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3).

It is interesting that Paul would use this image of the serpent. It is the same image that Christ used when admonishing His disciples to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

And in a little-known scripture that I love, the author of Proverbs asks that knowledge and understanding not, “depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion: so shall they be life unto thy soul… then shalt thou walk in the way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble”. (Proverbs 3: 21-23).

I think the word discretion is particularly appropriate here, especially the meaning it bears of cautious judgment and discrimination. There is clearly no blind faith implied here.

But in our church, I see a lot of credulity and a need for a great deal more discretion in gospel teaching. I see far too many persons advancing chronologically through our various curricula developing a sense of absolute opinion on questions of history and doctrine – when uncertainty needs to be acknowledged. If we do this right, there is no need to worry. Terryl Givens (in an important fireside address in Palo Alto, California) rejoiced in this uncertainty.

He said, “in this world, one is always provided with sufficient materials out of which to fashion a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial.” And in a candid moment admitted that “I am grateful for a propensity to doubt, because it gives me the capacity to freely believe.”

On the other hand credulity, though certainly not a sin, is very much a vulnerability. I have seen it up close in my own extended family when an individual learned about Joseph Smith’s relationship with a young woman named Fanny Alger. Polygamy is one of those subjects that we hardly talk about in the Church. We certainly ignore the occasional unsavory examples that did exist.

We shouldn’t be surprised that the anti-Mormon crowd relishes the thought of Joseph Smith as an adulterer and libertine. Even Oliver Cowdery hinted to the same effect when Joseph became involved with the young woman (Fanny) that had been working as a maid in his home. What Oliver did not know was that Joseph and Fanny had been married.

This happened at the time when Joseph was struggling to deal with the issues of plural marriage – being required to bring back the ancient practice, but hesitating because of the resistance he expected. For believing Latter-day Saints it is understandable that Joseph would feel the need to keep this early effort quiet.

Critics of the church almost always fail to mention the visit that Joseph made to Fanny’s parents asking for permission to marry her – permission that was readily granted. Yes there are other polygamous cases that look funny to us, cases where the plural wives seem to have been married already. But we make a serious mistake pretending to understand the situations involved. We have marriage records and a handful of letters and diaries, but very little of specific contexts.

Susan Easton Black mentioned years ago (in a class I took from her) that one can find every sort of experience in the Mormon history of polygamy. This experience ranges from the tragic to the sublime. The historical reality is that thousands of highly spiritually sensitive persons (including several remarkably independent individuals) knew and loved Joseph and would not have followed a libertine as they followed Joseph.

Why can’t we talk about this more openly? It can come as a surprise, for sure. But if we don’t bring it up in an environment of faith, it will very likely come up in an environment of disbelief. In such an environment in will not only shock, it can spiritually maim.

We already have a rudimentary sense of apologetics in the Church. We can build on this. As a young missionary I learned of the oft-repeated argument found in the Book of Revelation (the last book in the Bible) that God would punish those who added to His words (implying that subsequently revealed scriptures were not possible). I learned, however, that there is a similar text found in the Book of Deuteronomy (a book found towards the beginning of the Bible). This second scripture made it obvious that the divine warning at the end of the Bible was really a warning only for the Book of Revelation. The implication being that God can continue instructing His children and that revelation from God to man need not cease.

This is a simple example. Anti-Mormon literature today can be more subtle, malicious, and just mean. It is also more available (through the internet) and more organized. It is unlikely that any active Latter-day Saint today will escape this onslaught – whether it comes to friends, to loved ones or to oneself. We need to know how to handle the shock that comes when we get exposed to criticisms of our faith.

One of the normal responses to this exposure is betrayal. “How is that I have been a member of the Church all my life and have never heard of this before?” is a typical feeling. Elder Mattson (though not a member all of his life) seems to have felt this way.

We should be more aware of credulity and of its vulnerability, more serious about real scholarship. We will be shown the direction the Church has chosen to follow at the end of the year – with the new format for our organ of apologetics (that will displace the Mormon Studies Review). It will deserve our studied care, whatever form it takes.   

I am not suggesting that we hurry to our Sunday School classes and begin troubling others with contrarieties. But I am suggesting that we not shy away from teaching moments when they come. I am also convinced that we should stop disparaging those that have questions.

I have a handful of questions about my faith – questions that our best scholarship does not entirely resolve, at least to me. But I have the advantage of an empirical background. As a scientist I know that rational certainty is a rare luxury. And even on those subjects that I wonder about, I recognize that nobody has a clear understanding on these issues. Why should I lose my faith over such uncertainties?

This is where my uncertainty and questioning – my doubt, if you will, are a great blessing. They keep me grounded in a world of false accusations and pointed criticisms. When I learn of these religious attacks, I have the benefit of several defenses. I know where to find a vast literature of faithful responses. I know that certainty on these issues is not likely. And I know that better minds than my own, have faithfully handled these issues already, and give me motivation to keep looking for answers. A healthy attitude of questioning is a very valuable asset to anyone with faith.

In the end, let us focus on faith and not belief. Faith is a total vital response, as Wilfred Cantwell Smith reminded us years ago. Belief is the rational inclination to propositions. It can trouble us to no-end if we imagine that it is our ultimate goal – it shouldn’t be. It is faith that draws us to Heaven and informs our spiritual lives. Faith is the answer to doubt, and it has nothing to fear from uncertainty.

References

The FARMS Review grew out of the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon; later the FARMS Review of Books; later, The FARMS Review; and most recently, Mormon Studies Review – which will be changing itself again by the end of the year. McConkie’s statement on doubt comes from Mormon Doctrine (page 208 in the Second edition (1966) under “doubt”). John Henry Newman’s statement on doubt comes from his very important A Grammar of Assent (page 4 in my 1947 edition published by Longman’s, Green and Company). Terryl Givens address entitled Letter to a Doubter can be found at: terrylgivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Letter-to-a-Doubter.pdf. For a discussion of the Fanny Alger question see Richard Bushman’s Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, published in 2005 by Alfred A. Knopf. Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s comparison of faith and belief can be found in his book by that name: Faith and Belief.

The Poor Man's Atomic Bomb

Nuclear warheads are prohibitively expensive to make - at least for most nations. Even with a sufficient knowledge base and enough enriched uranium, the investment in nuclear weapons is significant enough to keep these weapons out of the hands of all but a very few regimes. In fact a credible argument can be made that the large military budget of the Soviet Union (spent largely on nuclear weapons) was the cause of its collapse. 

This is not true of biological weapons which utilize deadly bacteria and viruses. Many of these can be grown in a Petri-dish, in chicken eggs, or in a fermentation tank; and then mass-produced by technicians drawn from a largely unskilled workforce. David Hoffman referred to these kinds of weapons as the “poor man’s atomic bomb”.

Among the chilling notes that have recently come to light from the Soviet Union’s Cold War deliberations on germ warfare are what appear to be comparative costs for causing human carnage (at least from the Soviet’s perspective). According to these estimates, conventional weapons costs around $2,000 for every life taken in battle. Nuclear weapons can do the same damage for $800. Chemical weapons cost only $60, and biological weapons have the unbelievably low ratio of 1:1 – that is $1 per death.     

How can germs be so cheap? The answer is simple: they are living organisms and can reproduce. Once their basic biological needs are understood and properly manipulated, growing germs is not much more complicated than producing night crawlers in a compost heap. Anybody can learn how to do it.

In fact there are thousands of organizations – ranging from high school biology classes to corporate laboratories – that grow micro-organisms every day. The size of an average yogurt-processing tank, for example, is big enough to produce weapons for a small country. Of course the ingredients are different, but the methods themselves can be eerily alike.

What makes this particularly un-nerving is the ubiquity of the technology. Fermentation tanks are not hard to find. And the knowledge of growing micro-organisms has become a classic science – easily mastered by the thousands of graduate students that flock to American universities from all over the world every year. You can rest assured that somewhere in the world right now, one of our enemies has a stockpile of these nasty critters and is just waiting to spread them around.   

The reality of these biological weapons became all too apparent just a month following the tragedies of 9/11. On October 15, 2001 a letter containing a white powder was opened in the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Two days later the offices were closed, and then shuttered by October 20. When it was discovered that the powder contained anthrax spores (a deadly bacterium known to scientists as Bacillus anthracis) authorities checked everybody that had been close to the letter. Several individuals tested positive for the microbe. These and many others were treated immediately with an antibiotic known to be effective against the disease. Because of this quick response nobody from the Senate building died. 

Other letters were sent to NBC, ABC and CBS. The New York Post received one too as well as AMI (American Media, Inc. in Boca Raton, Florida) presumably targeting The National Enquirer. Robert Stevens, a mail worker at AMI, was to become the first fatality of the biological attacks. It is suspected that he was exposed to the contaminated letter on September 25. He died on October 5.

At least four other people died within the following days. Tomas Morris and Joseph Curseen (both postal workers in Washington, DC) died on October 21 and October 22 respectively. Kathy Nguyen of New York died on October 30, and Ottillie Lundgren of Connecticut died on November 21.

Their tragic deaths stunned America. Coming so soon after the suicide air attacks in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania Americans weren’t sure what sort of prolonged terrorist assault they were to expect. But almost as suddenly as the anthrax was disseminated, the attacks stopped. Americans were fortunate that only five individuals lost their lives.

In hindsight the anthrax scare would seem pathetic if it weren’t for the five fatalities. The envelopes were over-filled (they were too obvious). The formulated carrier was crude. The delivery system (paper envelopes) could hardly be expected to deliver death to any more than just a few individuals. If it hadn’t been for the notes in the letters (announcing the end to America and Israel) it would almost seems as if the whole effort were a misguided prank from a high school gang carrying stolen anthrax. How naïve were these terrorists, anyway?

The more important question is: how naïve are we now – over a decade after the attacks? Are we ready for a more sophisticated attempt? The answer is: yes and no.

We have more antibiotics than we did before. Some of these have expired, and more need to be prepared. But at least we’re ahead of where we were. We also have better testing methods and equipment. At least in theory, infected individuals will be quickly identified and proper care can be provided. With many biological weapons, a quick response can save many lives. Even the effects of anthrax, which isn’t transmissible from person to person, can be greatly mitigated with prompt action.

We have also done a good deal more research on anthrax and several other potentially belligerent germs. This is both good and bad. The heightened awareness has made everybody (friend and foe alike) more aware of the biology of these micro-organisms. So while it is true that we are better prepared for a biological attack than we were in 2001, this preparation is only true at the bench level. In local communities, where the actual diseases will disseminate, we are just as vulnerable as we were before. In fact we are more vulnerable. Let me explain.

The carrier used in the 2001 anthrax attack was fairly primitive. Officials argued back and forth over just how sophisticated it was (in order to decide who could have made it). But in reality the deadly organisms were placed on to fairly simple clays. It’s no wonder that they didn’t spread very well. The clays (which contained the metal aluminum) where relatively heavy and could not be suspended in air for a very long time at all.

Another attack would never make such a mistake again. It really isn’t hard to make improvements. Many industries make products that require aerial suspension. Air fresheners, perfumes, pest control pheromones, etc. are only some examples. Companies have traditionally kept their technologies to themselves or have patented their discoveries. But eventually the art of keeping molecules (even big molecules) in the air becomes generally available. It doesn’t take a genius to look closely at a commercially available product and figure out how it works.

The other troubling fact remains that atmospheric inversions – like those experience in many places around the world – are notorious for keeping large molecules in the air for a long time. Farmers know that it is against the law to spray pesticides under these conditions because they take a very long time to land.

But we make a mistake if we assume that formulation technology is the only thing keeping our enemies from sending us a disease. The reality is that the former Soviet Union spent a great deal of money on both the production of germ agents and on their carriers. With the dissolution of the USSR, some of these agents were identified and destroyed. But, sadly, a large amount is still unaccounted for. And this is just the material that we know about.

It’s not my intention to scare anybody. But I do want to let the gravity of this situation sink in a little more than it has. At the local level (which is the level that any attack will assume) we are hardly more prepared for germ warfare than we were a decade ago.

So what, exactly should we be doing? Let me make a few suggestions that local communities might build from.

First of all, be smart about infectious disease. An attack might easily coincide with flu season, making a deadly agent more difficult to notice. If people are getting sick, stay away from public places. You should also have enough food and water to keep you and your family isolated for several days (or weeks if necessary) until the nature of the disease can be verified. Another suggestion is to have a quality dust mask in case you have to go into a public place. During the 2001 Anthrax scare, the CDC argued against using gas masks. This may or may not be good advice. I would, however, definitely get some kind of face mask or face protection (even a handkerchief would be better than nothing).

There are, of course, many other things that can (and should) be done. Stay healthy. Enjoy the sunshine (in moderation, of course – sunlight destroys germs), Avoid substances and situations that can compromise immune response. Develop the habit of regularly washing hands. Avoid touching your eyes, mouth or nose, etc., etc.

Finally, let me also encourage public involvement. This is not my talent but there remains a real need to make more immunizations available to the public – even for organisms (like smallpox) that have presumably been eradicated. Sadly, there exist organizations and nations that still have the desire and the capability to spread these deadly germs around the world again.

There may even be a stockpile in an apartment complex on the other side of your town. I began worrying about this when I started writing this essay. I went looking in our local university library for pertinent references and was stunned to find that a very high proportion of titles relating to the biology of toxic germs were missing from the shelves (not checked out by curious citizens, mind you, but missing!).

Let’s not be blind to the reality of bioterrorism. Its potential is a very real part of our modern world. Let’s be better prepared the next time it happens.

References

See David Hoffman’s The Dead Hand: the Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy, published by Doubleday (2009). Hoffman’s book won the Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction in 2010. See William Johnstone’s Bioterror: Anthrax, Influenza, and the Future of Public Health Security (2008, Praeger Security International) for a detailed account of the 2001 anthrax scare and of our poor local preparation now. For a sobering look at the smallpox threat see Jonathan Tucker’s Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox. Atlantic Monthly Press (2001). David Quammen’s recent book Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic (W.W. Norton & Company, 2012) is an good look at the current need for concern over emerging infectious diseases.

Race, Class and Christian Culture in America

Two weeks ago I watched an unsettling documentary on PBS TV about the future demographics of race in America. The program was professionally put together. Many experts were interviewed representing a wide range of minority interests. It was fascinating to see how the face of America has changed in the last couple centuries, and to see what it might look like in the future.  The most arresting datum for me (as a white man) was the change that will happen in the next few years: whites will no longer make up the majority of the American population.

 
This remarkable fact was meant to make a point. In fact it was meant to be the main point of the program. It was also meant to be alarming. And sadly, the conclusions to be drawn from this fact where made out to be somewhat sensational. They don’t need to be.

The PBS normally does a good job of not moralizing. It wasn’t so successful this time. Its argument was that race issues can be avoided (both now and in the future) if we focus on resolving class differences instead of worrying about race. Poverty and crime cut across all races and we shouldn’t stereotype. I agree.

But one of the implications of the program was that since we have been plagued with race problems from the beginning, we Americans will continue to be plagued by them if we don’t get our act together. And if we don’t, the tables will be turned. Instead of white supremacy, previous minorities will now have their say. Whites need beware.

The PBS should know better. And the reason it should know better is because America has a culture – believe it or not. It may not be a universal culture – certainly we come from many places. And many of us try to live beyond the constraints of this culture. But this culture exists nonetheless (both now and in the past) and it transcends both race and class. This culture is called Christianity.

The very fact of this Christian culture in America is studiously ignored in the public square. PBS is not alone in pretending that it makes little, if any, difference in our modern world. And besides, what many may call Christian culture really divides along racial lines anyway. It all boils down to race in the end – or so the argument goes.

But I disagree. Certainly we have local congregations that follow racial patterns. You don’t find too many whites in a black Baptist church in rural Alabama. Nor do you find too many black Mormons in central Idaho.  But here is my point: they do occur. And this racial mixing occurs a lot more commonly in metropolitan communities.

Even where this mixing is minimal, Christians are now more willing than ever to reach across racial lines in a shared community of faith. This last weekend I attended an inter-faith Thanksgiving service here in Fresno where I watched nearly a dozen faith communities accept and rejoice in our religious diversity. My son, who lives 3,000 miles away, occasionally attends a similar inter-faith community in Virginia. This is happening all across the country. Americans of faith are recognizing that the differences between their respective faiths are minor compared to the larger issues of rampant moral decay.

We see more and more that this widespread social concern is making the former issues of racial mixing less and less important. In many congregations race is no issue at all. The reason is simple enough: Christ teaches us to love all of our brothers and sisters. And in America right now, this Christian mixing is happening all the time, and in increasing amounts. The possibility of future inter-racial harmony in America is bright so long as we continue to follow Christ.

This may all sound historically naïve. After all, America was much more religious in former times when race relations were worse than they are now. How, then, can I claim for a mollifying Christian influence today?  Let me explain.

The first, and most obvious, argument is the compromises revolving around religion during the Constitutional Convention. Madison’s religious arguments, culminating in the First Amendment, allowed for a religiously diverse ensemble of states to join hands in a common cause. In fact this religious pluralism has probably done more than anything else to make America what it is today: the most religiously diverse and dynamic country in the world. And it is important that nearly all of the Founders were Christians. Even the few that may have had deistic leanings were morally grounded in the teachings of Christ.

And this Christian majority continued to inform American culture into the 19^th Century. Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in the mid-19^th Century, argued that “all the sects in the United States are within the great Christian unity, and the morality of Christianity is everywhere the same… So, therefore, at the same time that the law permits the American people to do everything, religion prevents them from conceiving everything and forbids them to dare everything.”

But what about the Civil War, where both the North and the South claimed to be Christians? Doesn’t this argue against my point of a convivial Christian culture? Well yes and no. Yes the Civil War saw Christians fighting against Christians. But a very relevant point is to be made that religion was not the main driver in the war. Economics, states’ rights and the protection of a culture were the main points. Yes each side in the conflict justified their position by quoting from the Bible. But the Civil War itself was not a war about the Bible.

It just happens that the issue of slavery can be ambiguous in the Bible. Issues of civil rights are no longer so ambiguous. A slave owner could argue against treating property (his slave) with the respect due to his neighbor – as Jesus’ teaching of the Good Samaritan requires. But this is no longer the case. No nation in our time accepts this corrupted version of human dignity. Even in our most segregated white churches today, racial equality is taught as a Christian mandate in Sunday school – even if not everybody totally agrees.

America changed a great deal after the Civil War. It changed again significantly after World War II. Christianity became much more diverse and more political. It also went through various cycles of popularity. Even during the 60’s and 70’s, when the media portrayed any Christian affiliation in a negative light, America remained predominantly Christian. And it remains so today.

Some older members of our congregations may have grown up in segregated communities and still feel uneasy around anybody that looks different than they do. But their grandchildren are playing with a world community that completely transcends the provincialism of yesteryear.  In America’s Christian churches today, race is not a limiting factor – at least doctrinally. And it is becoming less and less of a factor culturally.

I remember several years ago attending church in Maui, Hawaii. I was amazed (and very pleased) at the racial diversity in the congregation. The leaders on the stand were of Anglo and Hawaiian heritage.  Others in the congregation were from Latin America, some were from Africa, some were from the Philippines, others were from South Korea and other Asian countries, still others were from different parts of Polynesia. I (as a white man) was not in the majority. In fact there was no majority – except for the fact that we were all Christians – Mormons to be precise.

Did this commonality detract from individual family histories? I mean did individuals have to give up their heritage in order to be part of the group? Not at all. In fact the Hawaiian gentleman who conducted the meeting wore the expected white shirt and tie along with a nice Hawaiian lava-lava. Christianity does not destroy local cultures – it enables them.

Maybe this sounds a little too strong. But think about what it implies. Most cultures identify themselves by their virtues. Of course they are not blind to skin color or other obvious differences. But if you ask someone to describe their own culture, they almost always tell you about a locality, a faith, a heritage. It’s when we think of other (i.e. not our own) cultures that we invoke skin color, bad habits, and incomprehensible behaviors.

And Christianity is an inclusive culture. It also happens to be the major religion among the growing population of America. The growing Hispanic population is predominantly Catholic (but with Protestant and Mormon elements as well). The Black community is primarily Protestant (often Baptist). The White population that continues to grow is predominantly Christian (with Catholics and Mormons having the most children).

Of this religious core (made up primarily of Christians) Russell Reno states: “Decades of survey results report that around 40 percent of Americans say they attend church more or less weekly. Some sociologists speculate that this cohort, what I call the “committed core,” has been pretty constant for more than one hundred years. Sociologists know that people over-report their religious observance. Fieldwork suggests that 25 percent of the population goes to church weekly. However one parses the data, the fact remains: For a very long time, the committed core has been stable and substantial. It looks to remain so.”

America may be headed for a changing demographic future but the Christian majority is not going anywhere. I do not doubt that we will have to deal with some ongoing racial conflict. But I do doubt that the declining white population will be cause for greater violence. Nor do I think that we have to focus on class parity, like PBS suggests. America’s changing appearance is not the concern. The bigger issue is to deny our Christian heritage. Sadly, we can’t expect the popular media to give this reality much consideration. But this is to be expected. Popular media have always been jealous of religion’s cultural significance. We just need to be wiser than they are, lest these sensational documentaries become self-fulfilling prophesies.

References

Tocqueville’s quote is from Democracy in America (The University of Chicago Press, 2000) Volume One, Part Two, Chapter Nine. For a look at American religion after the war see Patrick Allitt, Religion in America since 1945. Reno’s quote comes from the most recent issue (December 2012) of First Things, pp. 4-5.

Organic Agriculture in Perspective

Earlier this month a handful of scientists and doctors hailing primarily from Stanford University published an article about the health benefits of organically grown food. What they found was quite controversial: that organically grown foods are not any safer or healthier than conventionally grown foods.

The response to this article has been substantial. Organic interests have quickly replied that the study fails to address many issues that make organic agriculture so necessary and important. Some of these arguments are thoughtful. Others are simply ridiculous – and amusing. All of them that I have read, however, fail to take a broader look at the organic movement and appreciate the reality of the world we currently inhabit.

Take the pesticide issue as a case in point. This is the main issue (of any credibility) that the organic apologists make against the Stanford study. It is argued that conventionally grown crops contain pesticide residues that are not found on organically grown crops. This is true for the most part. But this claim needs to be considered along with the fact that the residues occurring on non-organic produce fall below the danger zone established by EPA and FDA. They have to. It’s the law.

Well yes, argues the organic lobby, but what about the long-term effects of these pesticide residues? Certainly they can’t be healthy.

And the answer to this troubling question is that we don’t know for sure? And this is my point. Arguing about the dangers of miniscule amounts of chemicals on food makes about as much sense as arguing about the quality of the air we breathe. And I don’t mean this as an analogy. The air we breathe is probably just as dangerous to our long-term health as anything on the skin of unwashed apples. It may be more dangerous in some instances.

I don’t mean to poke fun at the organic movement. I would be a hypocrite to do so. But for a long time now, the purveyors of the organic gospel have been pushing an agenda that is quite different from the way their own movement got started. Special interests in recent years have focused on the evils of big business – the big chemical business in particular – whereas originally, the organic movement focused on the health of the soil.  

Sir Albert Howard is generally recognized as the father of organic agriculture. His book, An Agricultural Testament, published in 1943, is a clear statement on the importance of composting to good health. Howard was an agricultural adviser in India during the early part of the 20^th Century and faced the challenging problem of low soil fertility in a land that did not use cow manure in agriculture (manure was/is used as a fuel for cooking and heating homes). His solution was to use so-called “green manure” or decomposing plant material to add fertility to impoverished soils.

Howard named his composting method the Indore Process, after the village where he worked. It was a great success and became the basis for many books and articles published by J.I. Rodale (via Rodale Books and the Rodale Press).

Some of this early literature does address the importance of limiting the inputs of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but these issues seem to be mere tangents. The clear message is that healthy soils produce healthy food; which, in turn, produces healthy people.

Then the environmental movement came along. And after Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, many things changed within the organic movement. Pesticides became the causa belli. During the decades following the 1960’s many pesticides were banned and the Environmental Protection Agency became a powerful organization deciding what could and could not be used to protect the nation’s food from pests. The widely active biocides and pesticides with long residual activity were the first to be taken off the market. Many others have since followed in their wake.

This has been a positive thing for the most part. Growers are better educated on how to manage pests, and they generally have more products to choose from than they used to. Of course, it’s more expensive now to kill pests and the long-established problems of pesticide resistance continue to plague us. But the future of agriculture is promising – in spite of the many more mouths we have to feed.   

And through all of this the organic movement has felt the need to adapt its message. From healthy soils it now focuses on pesticide-free food. Unfortunately (for them) this will turn out to be a poor course to follow. The credibility of the organic movement (already limited) will become even more limited. Claims to better health and living can hardly be justified anymore.  The Stanford Study is a clear case of this.

But there have been hints of this for some time now. You may have been part of taste tests that used to be popular. Two plates of carrots (or apples, grapes, or other food) would be placed side-by-side. One plate would hold organic carrots, the other would hold conventional carrots. The challenge was to taste a difference between them. If you could taste a difference, then you had to rank them by preference. In the tests I participated in, there were often differences detected, and conventional produce tasted best. You may have experienced the same thing. The reason for this is that food tastes best when it is kept from spoiling. And the truth of the matter is that organically grown foods spoil quicker than conventionally grown food.

Another popular series of studies have looked at the productivity of conventional farming compared to organic farming. In many of these studies, organic farms produced less in acre-by-acre comparisons than conventional farms.

So the question becomes, if conventionally grown food is tastier, is just as healthy, and is less expensive than organically grown food, why should we bother with organic foods at all?

The answer may not be what you expect. We need organically produced food because it is old fashioned. Or rather, the answer lies with old fashioned organic agriculture. It lies with the soil. Organic farms that fail to compare favorably with conventional farms do so because they are trying to copy conventional markets. A dedicated organic grower that focuses on Albert Howard’s organic method of composting can out-compete conventional growers in both the quantity and quality of food produced. But this almost always happens on a small scale.

The farm that focuses on organic soil fertility can harvest fresh produce over a long growing season. If this is supplemented with modern pesticides (if they are needed) a farm will out-compete conventional growers.

You may say that this does not count as “organic” and you would be right. The rules of the organic movement (having started in California) are now official nationally (and are expanding globally). Using un-certified pesticides disqualifies a product as “organic”.

My response to all of this may seem harsh: Who Cares? If “organic” produce is not healthier, is less tasty, and costs more than my grocery store produce, I’m not going to buy the organic food. It doesn’t bother me to wash my vegetables.

But there is still a big need to improve the soil. And I still keep my own vegetable garden (and compost pile) because I much prefer the taste of fresh garden produce. I promise you that my fresh garden salad tastes better than conventionally grown salads (which taste better than flagging organic salads).

This is because I use tastier varieties (that aren’t “tough” enough for shipping) that come straight from plants that have been fed from rich compost. We may have a lot of sandy soil here in Fresno but my garden is full of organic matter and my plants love it. And they taste really good.

I think it’s time to give Sir Albert Howard a closer look. We’ve learned our lesson from Silent Spring. It’s time to move on. If we’re really serious about our health, let’s go outside and start a real organic garden. Let’s build up our soils.

References

The Stanford Study: Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review, was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (vol. 157(5)) in September of this year (2012). My copy of Sir Albert Howard’s An Agricultural Testament is a reprint published by Oxford City Press in 2010.