Author Archives: Fred Yi

Bioethics Update

Posted on by

FRED DE SAM LAZARO, guest anchor: A series of significant developments have emerged in recent weeks in the field of stem cell science. Each adds exciting prospects for treating disease; each adds vexing complexity. With us to help understand the science and the issues: Rick Weiss, science writer for THE WASHINGTON POST. Rick, why don’t we begin with the basics: What are stem cells, and why are they so controversial?

RICK WEISS (Science Writer, The Washington Post): These are the cells that are at the core of a very early developing human embryo. What scientists are very excited about them is that they can develop into all the different kinds of the tissues, so you can imagine using these cells to grow replacement tissues to help treat a variety of diseases. The controversy, of course, is in order to get at the cells you need to destroy developing human embryos, and for those who believe that even the earliest stages of human life have moral standing, this is of course tantamount to murder.

DE SAM LAZARO: We had a story earlier this month from a team in Massachusetts that claimed to have surmounted this hurdle.

Mr. WEISS: Right. This team figured out how to take an even earlier stage of the human embryo, when there are just eight cells, pluck one of those cells out of the embryo, and grow it into a colony of human embryonic stem cells, leaving the other seven cells alone to develop normally, as it turns out they will, into an embryo. They felt that this would allow them to get federal funding because it doesn’t harm the embryo. That’s the rule for federal funding. But as it turns out, the government is not allowing funding for this work because they say the only way to prove that those remaining seven cells can develop into a full human being is to actually transfer them to a woman and have them born as a baby. And, of course, these embryos are for research purposes and are not meant to be born, so that’s not going to happen.

DE SAM LAZARO: We did have a story sometime in November, as I recall, from teams which had found a way to create stem cells without embryos?

Mr. WEISS: Right. This is another promising approach. This is a team of scientists in Madison and Japan who converted ordinary skin cells into embryonic stem cells directly in the lab, without having to make any embryos or destroy embryos. But this is a method that still is experimental, requires viruses to make the changes. These viruses can cause cancers. So this method is really not ready for experimentation in people yet.

DE SAM LAZARO: And yet again was a story from California this month about a team that had essentially cloned new embryos?

Mr. WEISS: Right. So going back to the embryo method, these people took skin cells — actually the CEO of the company took his own skin cells, cloned those cells to make living human embryos of a stage from which you could take stem cells. This is another promising method for getting stem cells, but another controversial one, because it does involve the creating of embryos, cloned human embryos, which among other things if transferred to a woman by perhaps a rogue scientist would lead to the birth of the world’s first cloned baby.

DE SAM LAZARO: This has become demonstrably much more feasible than we had thought?

Mr. WEISS: Cloning has come a long way since Dolly the sheep was born 10 years ago.

DE SAM LAZARO: Okay, and finally in the very short time that we have, give us a sense of time frame. If I’m suffering from Parkinson’s or a disease that could be helped, how long might I expect?

Mr. WEISS: It’s not going to be quick. I think it’s safe to say five to 10 years before some real therapies start to come out of stem cells. There are still animal studies to be done and early human clinical trials. The field looks promising, but it does take time to really get somewhere with this.

DE SAM LAZARO: Rick Weiss with The Washington Post, thanks so much for coming by today.

Mr. WEISS: Thank you.

The 5 Browns

Posted on by

 

FRED DE SAM LAZARO, guest anchor: Remember the Osmonds? Our next story takes us to another Mormon family of musical prodigies. In the case of the Browns, the music is very different, but faith is the enduring cornerstone. Bob Faw of NBC News has our profile.

BOB FAW: The sound they create is inspired: lush, dramatic, intensely personal. But for The 5 Browns, playing Gershwin or anyone else is more than an exercise in making music. It is their keyboard testimonial.

GREGORY BROWN: When I get up on stage, it’s sort of the same feeling that I feel, like say when I’m saying a prayer or something. It feels like I’m communicating with something inside me and also a higher source at the same time

post01DESIRAE BROWN: Art in general is expressing something great or grander than life. So we are a conduit for expressing that.

FAW: Ages 22 to 28, they are devout Mormons. Every performance begins with prayer.

KEITH BROWN (Father, praying with his children): Please help us to have thy spirit with us as we play, that we will perform well as one.

FAW: Their prayer, like their performance, both an expression of their faith.

DESIRAE: To bring that music alive, we’re expressing it through our spirituality a lot of times. And even if you’re not spiritual, I think people feel a grandness of the universe, you know. Sometimes they can relate to it on a different level, but through us it’s through spirituality.

FAW: They started learning the piano when just three years old. The constant lessons, the home-schooling, all of it directed by their mother, Lisa.

LISA BROWN: We didn’t take this seriously for a long time because it was just part of the balance that I wanted — exposure to lots of different arts.

FAW: As the children became more proficient, money was tight. Their piano lessons cost more than the mortgage payments. Later, to get a second piano, the house had to be sold.

KEITH: And that was a struggle, I have to say.

FAW: But all the sacrifice, all the practice paid off when the Julliard School in New York, the nation’s foremost conservatory, accepted all five Browns. Musically, it was exciting. But in the Big Apple their beliefs were challenged, even shaken.

post02KEITH: We taught them how to think and taught them to not take our religious beliefs at face value.

LISA: And to question.

KEITH: And to question. Looking back, that could have been a recipe for disaster. What we thought was a firm foundation suddenly became not so firm. And, yes, there was a time that we thought that we had potentially destroyed our children. But the real happy ending, I guess if you have to say, is they actually did find themselves as young adults.

LISA: Now the philosophies they were raised with, they find purpose in it. And so it has more meaning, and there’s depth in them, and they’re able to interpret that in their music.

FAW: Tested, their faith was strengthened, their piano skills honed, and their careers soared.

KEITH (speaking on stage): We have known that there is a power greater than record labels or managers or agents that seems to have pushed our family down a path that we didn’t plan.

FAW: Their subsequent fame, all the concert and recording success they see as the unfolding of a divine plan.

(to the Brown siblings): Do you ever allow yourself to say to yourself how gifted you really are, and if so, where it comes from?

MELODY BROWN: I think we definitely all realize that we’ve been given gifts from our Heavenly Father. I mean, I don’t want to preach or anything, but like the parable of the talents, you know, it’s what you do with what the Heavenly Father gives you. I want to give everything that I can so that the audience is getting the most worthy of my talents. You know, I don’t want to fall short for them or for my God.

FAW: Their styles vary: Deondra, introspective, even brooding; Melody, romantic; Gregory is often playful, even athletic. But when they rehearse egos are set aside. Here, every Brown is an equal. Off stage they’re tight-knit as well, relishing each other’s company.

post03DEONDRA: The family and our relationships are more important than anything else. I think that’s kept us really well-grounded.

FAW: Well-grounded, yes — even squeaky-clean. But they’re no goody two-shoes. The 5 Browns enjoy doing what other 20-somethings do.

GREGORY (talking to audience onstage): My brother and I play a lot of sports. I was pretty much baseball and piano growing up, and my sisters — sometimes they shop. We watch a lot of movies, hang out with our friends. Ryan here likes to play a lot of video games.

FAW: Despite a grueling schedule — 120 concerts in one year alone — they refuse to perform on Sunday, reserving that time for church and, whenever possible, for what Mormons call “firesides.”

GREGORY (speaking at Sunday evening discussion): I do believe that God can speak to us and he can direct our lives. That is my testimony, and I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

FAW: Like their music, the words are heartfelt and personal.

MELODY (speaking at Sunday evening discussion): Just last night I was having a hard time, and all of a sudden there was a sense of peace and that everything would be all right, and that I had these words come into my head that said, “I will be where you will be if you will let me come.”

FAW: Often they conclude these “firesides” with a hymn arranged by Lisa.

BROWN FAMILY (singing): “There is joy in every sound when there’s love at home.”

FAW: But it is on the concert stage where the true calling of the 5 Browns is manifest.

MELODY: Ministry or not, we’re helping people feel good. You know, we’re helping them find joy in their lives and think that’s what it’s all about.

FAW: Here where it is not just notes and technique; here where the 5 Browns are making a joyful noise — and more.

For RELIGION& ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, this is Bob Faw in Richardson, Texas.

DE SAM LAZARO: Incidentally, the youngest Brown, Ryan, will be married later this year. The three Brown sisters are married.

Excerpt: THE WORD OF THE LORD IS UPON ME by Jonathan Rieder

Posted on by

Read an excerpt about the close relationship between Martin Luther King Jr. and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel from THE WORD OF THE LORD IS UPON ME by Jonathan Rieder (Harvard University Press, April 2008):

bookcover

Heschel’s prose had an extraordinary poetic quality — it burned with intensity — that always appealed to King. They also shared a connection to [Reinhold] Niebuhr, beginning with Heschel citing Niebuhr at the conference at which he and King first met. Heschel taught at Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, which was across the street from Union Theological Seminary where Niebuhr taught. The two men were neighbors on Riverside Drive. In their later years, they walked the drive together, and Heschel often talked about his friendship with King. But what especially lingered in the memory of Ursula Niebuhr, Niebuhr’s wife, was Heschel’s repeated reminiscences about Selma. “He was shocked, deeply, to see white Southern women spitting on and yelling at the Catholic nuns with whom he walked.” Both King and Heschel would denounce the Vietnam War in prophetic terms from the pulpit of Riverside Church.

King was cementing his ties to the circles of ecumenical liberalism at a 1963 conference on race and religion sponsored by the National Conference of Christians and Jews when he first met Heschel. Like King and Rev. Joseph Lowery approaching each other at a black preaching convention, King and Heschel did their own interfaith version of “preacheristic exaggerations” as they marveled at each other’s oratory. Any discrepancies of code, race, or theology that separated a Southern Baptist preacher from an old-world sage descended from Hasidic royalty dissolved in the myriad parallels of prophecy, passion, and poetry.

In keeping with King’s taste for Exodus, the always inventive Heschel observed that the main players at the first conference on race and religion were “Pharaoh and Moses. Moses’ words were, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, let my people go that they may celebrate a feast unto me.’ …The outcome of that summit meeting has not come to an end. Pharaoh is not ready to capitulate. … In fact, it was easier for the children of Israel to cross the Red Sea than for a Negro to cross certain university campuses.”

If King affirmed “all God’s children,” Heschel asked the world “to remember that humanity as a whole is God’s beloved child. To act in the spirit of race is to sunder; to slash, to dismember the flesh of living community.” Racial prejudice, he said, was blasphemy, “a treacherous denial of the existence of God.”

Echoing James Bevel in Birmingham a few months earlier (“the Bible is now”), King told the audience, “Religion deals not only with the hereafter but also with the here. Here — where the precious lives of men are still sadly disfigured by poverty and hatred. Here — where millions of God’s children are being trampled by the iron feet of oppression.” Heschel said at the same conference, “We think of God in the past tense and refuse to realize that God is always present and never, never past; that God may be more intimately present in slums than in mansions.”

Back in Georgia, did not [Ralph] Abernathy insist “this is God’s Albany”? Heschel pronounced, “This is not a white man’s world. This is not a colored man’s world. It is God’s world.” King argued against resignation to the slights of the world. To those who thought action would be “too little and too late,” that all we can do is weep, Heschel retorted that if Moses had followed that lesson, “I would still be in Egypt building pyramids.”

Both men were capable of intense feelings that required a visceral language to express them adequately. Resorting in his speech to the same imagery of foul smell he had invoked in a Birmingham mass meeting, King said, “The oft-repeated clichés, ‘The time is not ripe, ‘Negroes are not culturally ready,’ are a stench in the nostrils of God.” “My heart is sick,” admitted Heschel, “when I think of the anguish and the sighs, of the quiet tears shed in the nights in the overcrowded dwellings in the slums of our great cities, of the pangs of despair, of the cup of humiliation that is running over.”

To top it all off, both men cited King’s favorite line from Amos, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream.”

The two men’s friendship had a certain purity. It was forged by the spiritual audacity — the concept is Heschel’s — that each man saw in the other. Such boldness also entailed a distinctive verbal practice. Like King, Heschel understood that the prophetic task entailed “speaking for those who are too weak to plead their own cause. Indeed, the major activity of the prophets was interference, remonstrating about wrongs inflicted on other people,” which in turn entailed talking God into the world.

When King was in need in Selma, he called on Heschel to come to his aid. At a service right before the march, Heschel read Psalm 27, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?” A famous photograph captured the two men walking over Pettus Bridge together. The marchers referred to the bearded sage as “Father Abraham.” Back in New York, Heschel wrote King: “The day we marched together out of Selma was a day of sanctification. That day I hope will never be past to me — that day will continue to be this day.” “For many of use,” he later reflected, “the march from Selma to Montgomery was about protest and prayer. Legs are not lips and walking is not kneeling. And yet our legs uttered songs. Even without words, our march was worship. I felt my legs were praying.”

Dr. Ben Carson

Posted on by

 

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: We have a report today about one of the most prominent pediatric neurosurgeons in the world: Dr. Ben Carson. He’s probably best known for his surgeries to separate conjoined twins. Carson talks about his work and his Seventh-day Adventist faith in a new book out this month called TAKE THE RISK. Kim Lawton reports.

KIM LAWTON: Ben Carson knows a lot about risk. As one of the leading pediatric neurosurgeons in the world, Carson makes life and death decisions nearly every day, and he has gained international fame for his work separating twins joined at their heads. Carson believes risk can be a good thing. But he says most Americans are obsessed with security.

Dr. BEN CARSON (Pediatric Neurosurgeon, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions): A lot of people simply don’t realize their potential because they’re just so risk adverse. They just don’t want to take the risk.

LAWTON: Carson is a committed Seventh-day Adventist. He says when he makes his own risk assessments, he seeks guidance from God.

Dr. CARSON: I pray before I go into the operating room for every case, and I ask him to give me wisdom, to help me to know what to do — and not only for operating, but for everything.

Dr. Ben Carson

LAWTON: Faith and risk have defined Carson’s life, both personally and professionally. He directs pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore, Maryland. In addition to his work with conjoined twins, Carson has pioneered surgical techniques to stop seizures. Not bad for a kid from inner-city Detroit whom many people would have written off.

Dr. CARSON: I was definitely an at-risk kid growing up. You know, my parents got divorced early on. My mother only had a third-grade education, was illiterate, worked as a domestic two to three jobs at a time because she didn’t want to be on welfare. I was considered the dummy in the classroom when I was in 5th grade, and I just didn’t believe that I could do the work, so I engaged myself, you know, by creating disturbances.

LAWTON: His mother, Sonya Carson, prayed for wisdom on how to help her two sons. She mandated that they write two book reports a week for her.

Dr. CARSON: Not knowing she couldn’t read, I mean, she would highlight and checkmark and stuff, and we’d think she was reading them. But she could always discuss them with you. She said, “Let’s talk about your book report.” It only really took a month maybe before I started to enjoy the reading. Something happened. I got to the point where I couldn’t wait to get home and read my books.

LAWTON: He began seeing a future for himself. But Carson says he faced another challenge — his explosive temper. He was often getting in fights. Then, when he was 14, he tried to stab a friend but the knife blade hit the boy’s belt buckle.

Dr. CARSON: It dawned upon me at that moment I was trying to kill somebody over nothing, and, you know, I locked myself in the bathroom and I just started thinking about it and I said, you’re not going to accomplish your dream of becoming a doctor; you’re going to end up in jail or reform school or dead.

LAWTON: He says he prayed for God’s help and then picked up a Bible, which opened to the Book of Proverbs and verses about anger. He believes God took away his temper and enabled him to become a surgeon. Carson still reads from the Book of Proverbs every day. He says it is part of his spiritual preparation for surgery.

Dr. CARSON: My strong belief is that God created human beings and therefore he knows about every aspect of the human body. So if I want to fix it, I just need to stay in harmony with him.

LAWTON: For Carson, surgery is often a spiritual experience.

Dr. CARSON: When I look at the human brain I’m still in awe of it. Every single time you lift off the bone and open the durra, and there it is, the human brain, the thing that gives a person a personality, that distinguishes each one of us. I don’t particularly like, you know, cutting the brain. It’s such a beautiful thing, why cut it? And I’m not even sure I like surgery. But I like what it does.

LAWTON: Seeing the mechanics of the body, he says, has taught him about the non-tangible aspects of life.

Dr. CARSON: We are more than just flesh and bones. There’s a certain spiritual nature and something of the mind that we can’t measure. We can’t find it. With all our sophisticated equipment, we cannot monitor or define it, and yet it’s there.

LAWTON: Carson has had many high-profile cases. In his new book, TAKE THE RISK, he describes one of the toughest decisions of his career. In 2003, he was asked to be part of a surgical team trying to separate 29-year-old Iranian twins whose skulls were fused together. The surgery had a less than 50 percent chance of success. Carson was reluctant, but then he met Ladan and Laleh Bijani.

Dr. CARSON: They said, “Doctor, we would rather die than spend another day together.” And, you know, that kind of takes you aback. But then I put myself in their place and I said what if you were stuck to the person you liked the most in the world 24/7 and you could never get away from them for even one second? And I realized what they were going through.

LAWTON: He ultimately decided to be part of the controversial surgery, which took place in Singapore.

Dr. CARSON: It became very clear as time went on that they were going to go through with the operation whether I helped or not. So at that point, you know, I started thinking there’s not a very good chance of success here, so I’d better go and help, because if they die I’m going to wonder for the rest of my life if it could have turned out differently if I would have helped.

LAWTON: Despite his help, after more than 50 hours of surgery Ladan died, and then Laleh died 90 minutes after that.

Dr. CARSON: I always say if God didn’t allow any bad things to happen, we would already be in heaven, and we are not there. That’s where trust and faith comes in. You just say, “Lord, I don’t understand it. But one thing I do know is that you understand it and that you are in control and I trust you.” And that’s the end of the story.

LAWTON: At 56, he says he has seen many miracles, too. It’s tough to keep up with him as he visits his many patients in the pediatric intensive care unit. His staff calls this the “lightning rounds.” And despite the pace, there’s always time for a personal word with the patients and a hug from grateful families. And he has been forced to face his own mortality. In 2002, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. After treatment, Carson says he’s now cancer-free.

Carson tries to have an impact outside the operating room. In 2004, he was appointed to the President’s Council on Bioethics, and Carson has become a vocal advocate for health insurance reform.

Dr. CARSON: I see the insurance issue, the coverage of people for health care in our country, as a huge moral issue. And, you know, for the richest country in the world to have 47 million people without health insurance is ridiculous.

LAWTON: One of Carson’s greatest passions is encouraging education, especially for at-risk kids. He and his wife have started a national scholarship program called the Carson Scholars Fund.

Dr. CARSON: If we can take young people who excel at the highest levels, put them on the same kind of pedestal as the all-state basketball player and the all-state football player, and begin to get the same kind of recognition, it will have a profound effect, and we are finding that it does.

LAWTON: He admits one big danger for neurosurgeons can be developing a God complex.

Dr. CARSON: You’re going into these incredibly delicate places that control who people are, and you’ve got to have a fair ego to think you can do that. But for me personally, I realize where it all comes from. All the good things come from God. I can’t really claim any of them, and I just feel privileged that I was dealt a measure of the healing arts.

LAWTON: Faith may be a risk, he says, but it’s the best risk of all. I’m Kim Lawton in Baltimore.

Frederica Mathewes-Green Extended Interview

Posted on by

Read more of Kim Lawton’s interview about the Star of Bethlehem with Frederica Mathewes-Green:

Q: What is it about the Star of Bethlehem, this character in the Christmas story?

A: I would really hate for the focus on uncovering what this was historically or scientifically or astronomically to eclipse the fact that this is a star of wonder. The intense sense of wonder that surrounds this whole story — I know when I was a child and would be hearing the Christmas story, so much of it seemed homey and familiar. There’s the sheep. There’s the manger. But then when there was this exotic element where you have these three wise men — what in the world is that when you’re a kid? Coming in on camels and they’re dressed like kings, and they’re following the star. The star that’s at the center of that part of the story is such an object of wonder because we don’t understand what it is. And it brings an injection of something into the story that isn’t familiar, because these are people who are not children of Israel. These are people who are coming from the East, and what I found the church fathers said is that they were in the same tradition as Baalam, the prophet at the time of Moses who prophesied that a star would arise out of Jacob. In the early writings of the church, you found people playing with that and saying these wise men had been taught by generations of prophets to look for this star. So when they saw it, they knew what it was, and what it means as well is this is the first time we have non-Jews participating in the worship of Jesus. So, you know, that was a big debate in the early church about whether you had to be Jewish in order to be a Christian, and right at the beginning of the story we see this in-breaking, so it’s a wonderful moment of inclusiveness that the star brings to us.

Q: And part of that is a revelation, too, revealing elements of the story.

A: Yes, it’s wonderful to see that people even who were not in the Judeo-Christian tradition still could have revelation, could have that little prophecy that they knew was important and [they] clung to it, and that they kept looking for that star. The people of that religion honored light as symbolic of God. They believed in one God, and they believed that he was represented by fire or starlight or sunlight, but it was light, and Christians can identify with that. We know that God is light. We forget that before a hundred years ago there was no experience of light that was not also an experience of fire. So this combination of the fire of light, the fire of the stars — it brings a vitality to it, I think, compared to how we think of light these days. So the wise men, the magi following that star, following the light till they reached the light, the light of Christ, is a very beautiful kind of metaphor that is much more than a metaphor at the heart of scripture and at the beginning of the Christmas story.

Q: For Christians, Christmas is a time that celebrates God coming down to earth through Jesus in human form. How does the star play into that part of the Christmas story?

A: One of the nice things about the star being part of the story is that, in a way, it’s not spiritual. It is something that is solid and real and material. Stars are a real thing that exists in the universe, and even if you disagree about what form that star took — for example, Saint John Chrysostom said it wasn’t a star at all, a star can’t point out a particular house, it was an angel. It was something that had been transformed into the likeness of a star that could nevertheless lead them and come to rest right over the house where Jesus was. No matter what we make of it, we can acknowledge that it is something that existed in this real world. And I get frustrated with people who say, “Well, the star was just a myth,” because if you’ve already accepted the idea of the incarnation, then you’ve swallowed the camel and you’re straining out the gnat. The incarnation of God into human form is a much bigger miracle than just God controlling a star, or something that appeared to be a star. So what all this is about is the presence of God working through material reality. Christians have always insisted on that against the idea that God exists in some separate realm and doesn’t exist in the form of matter or muddle in matter at all. We see that he is present here now. Really, that’s what the incarnation is all about.

Q: Year after year people hear the same story, and there does seem to be eternal, enduring interest in all parts of it.

A: I think that this story speaks to something deeply buried in human nature that has to do with the whole mystery of our existence. As the book of Ecclesiastes says, “God has put eternity in our minds.” How can we have eternity in our minds? The mystery of that keeps calling us forward. Somehow when we come to this story of a poor woman giving birth in a stable and of a star pointing out that child and bringing men from the East, wise men, this collision of the simple and the humble with the most elevated and mysterious, we know that there’s something true there, even if we’re not yet able to claim the entire story. We sense that there’s some kind of truth in that story that pulls us forward. They always want to know more.

Q: Some people have also talked about the star’s element of guidance or leading — a means by which God guided people.

A: The star was a means of guidance. It replicates the story of the children of Israel in the wilderness with Moses, being led by, it says, a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. What led the wise men is very similar to that pillar of fire, and we should not be surprised that God is able to use material reality, things like stars, to lead his people. I think the greater miracle is that he can use me, you know? That he can guide me and direct me. Stars are a lot easier to direct than something as hard-headed as I am. But the more I welcome his direction into my life, the more I know that joy of participating fully in the dance of the cosmos that our God orchestrates every day.

Q: Does the Christmas story still have the same power, the same newness and appeal, every year?

A: The Christmas story has such power and such appeal every year. There are other stories we get tired of. You think of your favorite movie; you don’t want to watch it 15 times. I’m 55. I’ve heard this Christmas story year after year after year. There is a mystery in the heart of it that never fails to tantalize us, which will tell that there’s something more there, and the closer we get to it, the more the mystery and the depth unfold. I think that’s one of the things that the star speaks to us, that in its brilliance, its luminosity, its elevated qualities it participates in this very same universe that we’re in, that it shows us the depths of the story and, just as it led the wise men, it leads us as well deeper and deeper into the mystery.

Star of Bethlehem

Posted on by

 

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: One important element of the Christmas story is the Star of Bethlehem, which guided the Wise Men to Jesus. Over the years, many have wondered just what that star was. Now, modern technology may be providing new answers. Kim Lawton reports.

KIM LAWTON: Around the world, it’s one of the most beloved Christmas symbols. And this time of year you can see the star almost everywhere.

WiseMen

In the Christmas story, a star marked the birth of Jesus and led Wise Men or Magi from the East to find the child in Bethlehem and bring him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. For centuries, the star has intrigued astronomers, historians, artists, and theologians alike: was it a one-time miracle, a literary myth, or was the Star of Bethlehem an actual astronomical occurrence?

Professor RONALD KAITCHUCK (Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Ball State University, Indiana): It’s a fascinating concept. It’s a fascinating question as to whether this is real.

LAWTON: Ronald Kaitchuck teaches astronomy at Ball State University in Indiana and directs the planetarium there. For the last 40 years, Ball State has presented a popular Christmas show offering possible explanations for the Star of Bethlehem. Observatories across the country offer similar programs.

(Audio from planetarium show): What we seek is an astronomical object or event that had special significance to the Wise Men, but not necessarily to the general public.

Planetarium

LAWTON: Many traditions have arisen about the Wise Men, but the only biblical account is in the Gospel of Matthew, which doesn’t even say how many Magi there were. Most scholars now believe they were court astrologers from Persia or southern Arabia.

Finding the star hinges on timing. The birth date of Jesus is not known. According to Matthew, Herod, the King of Judea, was still alive. Scholars disagree about whether Herod died in 4 B.C. or 1 B.C.

Modern scientific discoveries and high-speed computers allow people today to calculate what the skies looked like at any given point in history. Many astronomers believe the Star of Bethlehem could have referred to a series of planetary or celestial events as opposed to a single object. One such series of events occurred beginning in 6 B.C.

Prof. KAITCHUCK: Three of the major planets appeared fairly close together in the same part of the sky. That’d be Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. And then, just a year later, we know from Chinese records there was a nova — an exploding star.

LAWTON: Despite years of studying the possibilities, Kaitchuck says he hasn’t reached a conclusion about what the star might have been.

Prof. KAITCHUCK: You see lots and lots of things that are all like maybes — very definite maybes.

LAWTON: In College Station, Texas, law professor Rick Larson believes he may have identified the real Star of Bethlehem. Larson is making presentations about his theory at venues around the world, and he’s just released a new DVD about it.

Larson

Larson is an evangelical Christian. He began his star quest several years ago after he and his daughter made some Wise Men Christmas decorations for their front yard.

Dr. RICK LARSON (Law Professor): When we were done putting those up, Marion, who was probably eight at the time, says, “Daddy, make a star.” And so I was hit with this question. “Yeah, I’ll make a star, but what was the star?”

LAWTON: Using his legal research skills, Larson looked for clues about the star in the second chapter of Matthew.

Dr. LARSON: When the Magi arrived from the east, perhaps traveling from Persia or perhaps Babylon, they asked a question, and it’s loaded. They say, “Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews?” Now something they’d seen in the sky suggested to them a connection with birth, kings, and the Jewish nation, and they saw the star when they arrived in Jerusalem. So it endures over time. So that’s another clue, because most celestial objects endure over time, but not all do.

LAWTON: Larson bought an astronomy computer program and started searching calculations of what the ancient skies looked like.

Dr. LARSON (pointing to map of sky): If you’re in Babylon looking west, you’re looking towards Judea.

LAWTON: And so if the Wise Men, the Magi, were in Babylon, this is what they would have been seeing?

Dr. LARSON: This is what they would see.

Judea

LAWTON: Larson also considered the particular meanings that constellations and planets had in those days. Jupiter, for example, was the King planet and Venus, the Mother planet. In June of 2 B.C., Jupiter and Venus came together in an extremely rare conjunction.

Dr. LARSON (in presentation): So we have the King planet and the Mother planet now coming into extremely close approach. Well, how close were they?

LAWTON: Close enough, Larson says, to really get the Magi’s attention.

Dr. LARSON: And the result of them being so close is that, because they couldn’t separate them with the naked eye, is that it appeared to be the brightest star anyone alive had ever seen, and I actually think that this is the star that got them on their camels to travel all the way to Jerusalem.

LAWTON: Nine months earlier, there was another series of spectacular celestial events laden with symbolism. Larson says it matches a vision recorded by Saint John in the Book of Revelation. He believes this could coincide with Christ’s conception. Using the same timetable, in 33 A.D. a lunar eclipse matches biblical accounts describing the day Jesus was crucified.

Dr. LARSON: I believe the Star of Bethlehem is just the beginning of a celestial poem that ends at Christ’s death at the crucifixion.

LAWTON: Seeing that poem, Larson says, strengthened his faith and revealed a new side of God.

Dr. LARSON: And to see that he would write in the sky, from before time, celestial poetry to announce the coming and passing of our Messiah took me to a different place, took me a place where I could see beauty in our creator that I hadn’t known.

LAWTON: Some Christians worry that trying to explain the Star of Bethlehem could detract from the miraculous aspects of the Christmas story.

Frederica

FREDERICA MATHEWES-GREEN (Author): I would really hate for the focus on uncovering what this was historically or scientifically or astronomically to eclipse the fact that this is a star of wonder. The star that’s at the center of that part of the story is such an object of wonder because we don’t understand what it is.

LAWTON: Mathewes-Green is an Eastern Orthodox Christian. She says the star may be ultimately unexplainable, just like the basic Christian belief that Jesus was God in human flesh.

MATHEWES-GREEN: I think that’s one of the things that the star speaks to us, that in its brilliance, its luminosity, its elevated qualities, but yet participating in this very same universe that we’re in, that it shows us the depths of the story and, just as it led the Wise Men, it leads us as well deeper and deeper into the mystery.

LAWTON: I’m Kim Lawton reporting.

Allen Hertzke: An Eloquent and Evocative Address

Posted on by

Mitt Romney’s speech at the Bush Presidential Library is firmly anchored in what Jon Meacham, in his book AMERICAN GOSPEL, describes as the “public religion” of the nation’s civic life. In a number of felicitous phrases replete with biblical allusions and echoes from the American civic canon, Romney pledged his absolute fealty to religious liberty, which he described as central to “America’s greatness” and the survival of a free land. “Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in pray to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me,” he declared.

Romney appealed to the “common creed of moral convictions” shared by all Americans, that every human being is a child of God and thus entitled to inalienable rights. In a Tocquevillian turn of phrase, Romney said that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” “Freedom and religion endure together,” he said, “or perish alone.” Evocatively, Romney also linked the Constitution’s prohibition against state religion to the religious vitality in America, in contrast to Europe’s established churches with cathedrals “so inspired…so grand…so empty.”

Because Romney’s speech obviously harkens back nearly a half century ago to John Kennedy’s address before Baptist ministers in Houston, it is instructive to compare the two. Like JFK, Romney pledged his loyalty to the Constitution and declared that if he was fortunate enough to take the presidential oath of office he would view that as “my highest promise to God.” Like Kennedy, Romney assured his fellow Americans that “no authorities” of his church would “exert influence over his presidential decisions.” In a direct echo of Kennedy’s address Romney said that he was not a Mormon running for president but an American running for president who happened to be Mormon. Like Kennedy, Romney linked the history of his people to the American story of advancing tolerance and freedom, but he did so by shining the light on shortcomings: “Anne Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West.”

Unlike Kennedy, Romney did not entertain the possibility that a conflict could arise between the dictates of his religious faith and his constitutional obligations. Kennedy declared that if such a rare choice presented itself he would resign from office. Romney made no such declaration.

Romney also had to go further in defining his faith than did Kennedy. Although he refused to explain his church’s distinctive doctrines — because to do so would “enable the religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution” — Romney did declare his Christianity in simple, accessible language: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.” But he also embraced the “the faith of my fathers,” pledging to be true to his Mormon beliefs. He did not think that would sink his candidacy because Americans respect “conviction” and “tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”

Tellingly, where Kennedy outlined the challenge from communism, Romney identified as a mortal threat to America the “theocratic tyranny” of “radical violent Islam.” Though not likely to be well received by American Muslims, this phrase seems designed to create solidarity with the majority of non-Mormons in the nation.

Romney’s speech was more overtly religious than Kennedy’s. Kennedy in effect said that his faith would have no bearing on his public work, and he went out of his way to oppose positions — such as state support for parochial schools — backed by his church hierarchy. Declaring that the separation of church and state should be “absolute,” Kennedy envisioned a civic life in which no religious body would seek to influence public policy (which he described as attempting to impose its will on officials).

Reflecting the tenor of public discourse in conservative circles today, Romney, in contrast, charged that church-state separation had been distorted by secularists in an attempt to remove religion from public life. “We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders — in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.”

In evoking both the Bible and America’s public religion, Romney described how he “was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor.” He saw his “father march with Martin Luther King” and his “parents provide compassionate care to others.” He said he was moved by “the Lord’s words,” in Matthew 25, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

Romney’s speech celebrated religious pluralism in more vivid terms than Kennedy. Where Kennedy referenced the Jew, the Quaker, the Unitarian, or the Baptist who suffered persecution for their faith, Romney made a more personal declaration. He declared that he loved “the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews… and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.”

Romney’s speech was thus even more ecumenical than Kennedy’s. One could hear evocations, even, of John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio, when he spoke of how “reason and religion” join to lift the human spirit in the cause of liberty.

Will the speech make a difference? Probably. It was an often eloquent and evocative address designed to allay concerns of evangelicals, tie his personal story to the nation’s heritage, and appeal to the broader public. But it remains to be seen whether it will do enough to win the hearts of born-again Christians who still view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult. One thing is likely: whether or not Romney wins the presidency, his quest will renew and advance the distinctly American refrain for religious freedom.

Allen Hertzke is professor of political science and director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma.

Response to Romney Speech on Religion

Posted on by

 

KIM LAWTON, guest anchor: Mitt Romney’s campaign advisors had been debating for months about whether the candidate should give a frank speech about his Mormon faith. On Thursday (December 6), Romney made that speech. At the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, Romney said he would be true to his Mormon beliefs, but his presidency would not be dictated by them.

MITT ROMNEY (Republican Presidential Candidate): I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

LAWTON: Romney also criticized what he called “the religion of secularism” that is trying to push religion out of American public life. Many experts believe the speech was designed to reach out especially to evangelicals who may be uncomfortable with the idea of voting for a Mormon.

Shaun Casey, author of a book about religion and John F. Kennedy's 1960 presidential campaignJoining me now is Shaun Casey, associate professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington and the author of a book coming out next year about religion and John F. Kennedy’s 1960 presidential campaign. Casey is also an advisor to Senator Barack Obama’s campaign.

Shaun, did Mitt Romney’s speech this week reassure evangelicals and others who might have had concerns about the notion of a Mormon president?

Dr. SHAUN CASEY, (Associate Professor, Christian Ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary): I think the jury’s probably still out on that. I think in terms of rank-and-file evangelicals the speech left a lot to be desired. I think in terms of evangelical leaders, they were pleased with what he said and they, while not having endorsed him, are still considering that option, I think, down the road. I think in terms of the national press the jury is still out. Some people were impressed; some were not. And in terms of Americans beyond that community of evangelicals, it was a pale imitation, I think, of Kennedy’s speech in 1960.

LAWTON: Well, I wanted to ask you about Kennedy’s speech, but first let me just ask you what was it in the speech that maybe didn’t satisfy the rank and file evangelicals?

Mitt Romney delivered a speech addressing concerns about his Mormon faith during his 2008 presidential campaignDr. CASEY: I think there was one particular dramatic moment when he talked about the question he gets asked about: Who is Jesus and what does he think about him? He gave a great answer in terms of evangelicals where he said Jesus is Lord and Savior of mankind, son of God. But then he said Mormon doctrine essentially differs from there about who Jesus Christ is — from evangelical doctrine. I think a lot of evangelicals at that point left very, very troubled.

LAWTON: Why does it matter? Why does it matter to the voters, you know, what he believes about Jesus?

Dr. CASEY: Well, in the current ethos, the current age, particularly in the Republican Party over the last eight years, it’s been fairly essential that a candidate demonstrate that they are theologically orthodox from a conservative Protestant perspective, and that answer didn’t meet that standard.

LAWTON: Was it a “Kennedyesque” speech? Was it the same thing that Kennedy did when he talked about his Catholicism?

Dr. CASEY: It was similar. I mean, the environment is different, but both were responding to external political forces. Neither candidate wanted to give the speech at that time, but both had to because an opponent was forcing them to that position. Kennedy talked more about separation of church and state, because that was the attack that was launched against him. Romney’s problem is different in the sense that people see his Mormonism as exotic or esoteric, and he has to knock that down without being too explicit about what Mormon doctrine really is.

LAWTON: So, very quickly, what will voters take away from this when they head to the polls?

Dr. CASEY: I think in Iowa he’s still in trouble. I think Mike Huckabee has overtaken him among evangelicals. I don’t think this speech changed that trend.

LAWTON: Okay, we’ll leave it there. Shaun Casey, thank you very much.

David Davenport: A Good Speech, But Will It Do Any Good?

Posted on by

A minister friend used to say: “It’s hard enough to give a good sermon, harder still to give a sermon that will do any good.” A large congregation awaited Mitt Romney’s sermon this morning, especially in Iowa, as he sought to explain his faith and how it would inform his presidency. It was a good speech but, given all that he needed to accomplish, it seems doubtful that it will do enough good to propel his campaign through Iowa and other tough Republican primaries.

Romney faced high expectations and an almost impossible dilemma as he delivered this message. On one hand, the American people as a whole are ambivalent about the matter of faith and religion in their public leaders. They want leaders who are religious enough to have strong personal values, but who are not too religious in the sense of looking to God to tell them which policies to adopt. That has historically been a fine line for any candidate to walk, but it has become more difficult in recent years because of the rise of evangelical Christians as a political force and the very different expectations they bring to religion in public life.

One way to assess the speech, then, is to identify the several audiences Romney needed to address and the messages they needed to hear:

1) The average American voter who wants religion, but not too much:

Here we could give Romney’s speech high marks on content, but a lower grade on timing. The timing problem is that the American people generally aren’t really paying attention yet to Mitt Romney and the stage full of Republicans running for president. If average Americans know, or care, that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, it is still not clear they know what that means. So, for the broad range of American opinion, this speech should have been given earlier, when Romney first entered the race, or later, as Kennedy did mere weeks before the general election when people were alert to the issues.

Still, the content was good in that what the average American wants to hear is that a candidate is committed to faith — we’re still not ready for an atheist as president — and that this faith has produced strong character and values in the candidate’s life. Romney’s appeal to the founders and to our history demonstrated that his faith stands in a strong, mainstream tradition. He referred not so much to the particularities of his church but to the “great moral inheritance we hold in common.” His faith is witnessed, he said, in his “marriage and family.” This would have been a good speech if the average American voter was his most important audience. But the speech wouldn’t have garnered as much attention if that were its main object.

2) Iowans (and other voters) concerned about a Mormon as president:

This was the audience people have assumed Romney needed to reach with some kind of explanation of Mormonism that would fit it into the mainstream of American faith and provide a defense against religious discrimination. Dealing with the particularities of Mormonism would have been too difficult in a short, national speech and was wisely not the tack Romney took. Instead, he sought to build a larger frame around his Mormon faith, one that placed it in the great middle of American values.

First, he explained that his was the faith of his fathers and he “will be true to them and to my beliefs.” Most Americans “inherit” their faith and will understand his loyalty. Then he addressed his beliefs about Jesus Christ, affirming that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind,” admitting that his church had “its own unique doctrines and history,” without addressing them specifically. In fact, he said that defending his church’s particular views would mistakenly make him a “spokesman for his faith” and would acknowledge that there was some kind of religious test for candidates. Instead, he said, we should focus on the “common creed of moral convictions” we all share.

This part of the speech should satisfy many, but not all, who are concerned about a Mormon president. Frankly, I think it’s easy to overestimate that concern since polls say people who express it generally don’t even know much about Mormonism. But this is probably as far as a candidate can or should go in dealing with the particularities of his religion. Just as John Kennedy did not deal with the specifics of Catholicism, Romney should build a larger frame around his beliefs and let it go at that, again earning relatively high marks here.

3) Evangelical conservatives who vote in Iowa and other Republican primaries:

At this stage of the campaign, this is Romney’s most important audience for a speech on faith, and here he receives lower marks. The new force in Republican politics in the last decade is the relatively large and active group of evangelical and other religious and social conservatives. This group accounts for 30 percent of the GOP voting base, and perhaps as much as 50 percent in Iowa. It is also a highly energetic bloc that can turn out votes and communicate its message.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that Romney and his faith message can reach that group. So far this bloc, which helped elect George W. Bush, has been unable to agree on any candidate for president in 2008. In just the last couple of weeks, many evangelical conservatives in Iowa have concluded that Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, could in fact win if they got behind him, so support has been shifting away from Romney and toward Huckabee. One estimate is that two-thirds of Huckabee’s support in Iowa comes from this group and only one-third of Romney’s, so this is the key religious group for Romney to reach at this moment.

Romney’s speech is not likely to sway this group. In fact, Romney is not a great match for evangelicals. Mormons come from a different religious tradition and culture than evangelicals, and Romney’s religion naturally informs his values, convictions, and personal life more than it does his policy positions. But evangelical conservatives want precisely the opposite: they want to hear that a candidate is taking a particular stand on abortion and other social issues because of his faith. Romney’s speech came close at one point, acknowledging that the “right to life” is a movement of conscience like “abolition or civil rights.” But then he moved on. This will probably not be enough connection between faith and stands on issues to satisfy evangelical conservatives that Romney is their man.

One of the difficult aspects of presidential campaigns is you have to stir up your own base and win primaries, but also be able to move toward the center and win general elections. Romney’s speech would have worked well next fall in appealing to the broad American voter base with his message of faith and values. But if the evangelical and social conservative voter group is as important to winning the Republican nomination as it appears, Romney may not satisfy them sufficiently to win primaries and make it to the fall general election campaign. It was a good speech, but may not do enough good with the one audience Romney most needs to reach right now, evangelical conservatives in Iowa and in other Republican primaries.

David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University. He teaches a course on “The Strategy and Rhetoric of Modern Presidential Campaigns”