Conservative Christians and Suicide

Since the suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain, I've been thinking about suicide and its causes. I've spent some time googling statistics. I'll share a few things I've learned.

Here are some facts about suicide and guns.

• Firearms account for over half of all suicides. (Source: American Foundation for Suicide Prevention)
• Almost two of every three gun deaths is a suicide. (Source: Every Town Research)
• Of those who attempt suicide with a gun, nine out of 10 die from the attempt. (Source: Every Town Research)
• Of those who attempt suicide without a gun, fewer than one in 10 dies from the attempt. (Ibid)
• Most of those who survive a suicide attempt do not attempt again. (Ibid)

One of the most surprising things I learned is this: More than half of people who die from suicide did not have a known mental health condition. (Source: CDC)

I had assumed that the correlation between mental illness and suicide would be much higher. I don't know that I expected it to be 100%, but I definitely expected it to be much more than half, not less than half. Even so, mental illness correlates to death by suicide very strongly.

LGBQ teens are almost 3 times as likely as straight teens to attempt suicide (Source: CNN). We don't have numbers for transgender teens. However, transgender people are almost 10 times more likely to attempt suicide than the general public (Source: USA Today). LGBTQ teens who experience family rejection are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBTQ teens who do not experience family rejection (Source: American Academy of Pediatrics). We don't know much about death from suicide among the LGBTQ community because sexual orientation is not part of a death record.

Religiously unaffiliated are more likely to attempt suicide. (Source: American Journal of Psychiatry) 

I didn't find any studies that broke that out by atheists, agnostics, ex-Christians, ex-Muslims, etc. I would be very interested in learning more about that. This article is a very interesting read on the suicide problem among atheists. Below is an excerpt.

So, what I learned is that suicide is very complex. There is no easy predictor. There is no easy way to discern the warning signs. There is no antidote like a vaccine to prevent suicide. It's a messy problem that usually begins with a messy situation and then leaves the family behind in a messy situation. Suicides are rising at an alarming rate, and there is no easy way to fix it.

So, what is a Christian response? I believe that conservative Christians should take a long hard look at themselves. I believe that the church, especially conservative Evangelicals, should consider how their politics, theology, and behavior may be contributing to the problem of suicide. Yes, it's uncomfortable, but we must look at ourselves.

The strongest correlation to death by suicide isn't mental illness or substance abuse or sexual orientation. It's access to firearms. People with access to firearms are 3 times more likely to die from suicide (Source: Fox News). How can we who claim to be pro-life also be so pro-gun? I have never understood the conservative Christian obsession with guns and the second amendment. It's baffling to me how one can claim to follow the non-violent Jesus while loving guns. Every time a school shooting happens, conservative Evangelicals resist any discussion of gun control laws. Since neither of the high profile suicides last week were by a firearm, gun laws didn't hit my social media news feeds. But gun control should be top of mind any time we want to talk about ways to decrease suicide deaths. Gun control is an obvious way to reduce suicide deaths in America.

Second, many conservative Christians have a tendency to stigmatize mental illness. I've heard things like, "He doesn't have a mental illness problem; he has a sin problem." I've heard advice given to mentally ill people that they should pray more. Prayer is good and helpful and powerful. However, it is not a simple fix for mental illness or depression. Often, professional counseling and medicine are needed to control, not cure, mental illness. And sometimes, even this only helps marginally.

Also, consider how conservative Christians treat the LGBTQ community. Ostracizing gay people is common in conservative Christianity. Many conservative Christians teach and practice rejecting and cutting all ties with gay members of their family. I have witnessed family ostracism of an LGBTQ family member first hand. It's painful and ugly. How many simply pretend to be something they're not to avoid ostracism? I've already noted that family rejection dramatically increases the risk of a suicide attempt in gay teens. This "Christian" ostracizing of LGBTQ family and friends is a contributing factor to the higher rate of attempts in the LGBTQ community. Christians must reconsider how they treat LGBTQ family members and the entire LGBTQ community.

And finally, consider the higher rates of suicide attempts among the religiously unaffiliated. I've heard Christians use this statistic to tout the virtues of Christianity. I've heard this statistic used to argue that all men crave God and those who refuse to believe have nothing but emptiness and that's why they're more likely to attempt suicide. More likely, the lower suicide rates among Christians is more likely attributed to the fear of hell. It's good that the suicide rates are lower for Christians. We should be thankful for that without being arrogant and patting ourselves on the back for having gotten this religion thing correct. We need to be considerate also.

Consider that many atheists, especially in the South, are ex-Christian. And as such, often their Christian family and friends have abandoned them. I know several atheists with this experience. All the ex-Christian atheists I know didn't arrive at their position overnight. They carefully studied and arrived there through much grappling with science and Scripture. They're sincere. I disagree, but I respect the courage to grapple and to do so with integrity. Sadly, I've watched Christians patronize and belittle atheists, calling April 1 "National Atheists Day" while quoting Psalm 14:1. Then, there's the oft repeated and patronizing phrase that atheists hate to hear, "I'm praying for you." 

Here's an example of how not to talk to an ex-Christian atheist.

To be clear, I'm not blaming Christians for the increased suicide rate. I'm simply asking us to examine ourselves and see if we need to change our theology, attitudes, politics, and behavior to be more helpful in bringing light and love to people and see if we can contribute to helping the problem of suicide. According to the CDC, isolation, access to lethal means, stigma associated with seeking help for mental health, and religious affiliation are all risk factors for suicide. Let's not isolate our LGBTQ friends and family members. Let's not isolate our atheist friends. Let's end our obsession with guns. Let's end our stigmatizing of mental illness. And let's draw people to relationship with Jesus in loving ways. All of these things will contribute positively to reducing suicide risk factors. 

Teacher's Guide to the Book of Romans (SATIRE)

Before reading this post, keep in mind that it is satire. I wrote this a long time ago when I was sitting through a church of Christ Bible class on the book of Romans. Remember, it's tongue in cheek. I'm a member of a church of Christ and have been for over 25 years, so I think I've earned the right to poke fun at our tradition. It's okay to laugh at ourselves. This post is just that. A little fun. If it offends someone, well, that probably means that it's satire. Remember that satire stretches the truth and risks offending people for the cause of humor.

Here's my chapter by chapter breakdown of Paul's letter to the Romans to make the Church of Christ Bible Class teacher's job just a little easier.

Chapter 1. Romans 1:28 Atheists are stupid and homosexuals go to hell.

Chapter 2. Romans 2:1 This chapter kinda sounds like don't judge, but don't get confused. It really means you can judge if you keep God's law, and we keep God's law better than anyone else, so we can judge.

Chapter 3. Romans 3:23 Everybody has sinned. We even have sinned, but that was before baptism and now we have quit sinning.

Chapter 4. Don't let Romans 4:5 confuse you. Works are definitely part of salvation. Let's turn over to James 2 so we can understand Romans 4. Paul really means that we're saved by faith AND works. Paul is difficult to understand and James is easy to understand.

Chapter 5. Romans 5:6-8 are great for a Lord's Supper talk. Be careful with the rest of this chapter. We're sure it does NOT teach total depravity (Romans 5:12) and we're really, really, really sure it does NOT teach universalism (Romans 5:18). We know that only a very few go to heaven, so don't get confused by the phrases "grace abounding" (Romans 5:20) and "many made righteous".

Chapter 6. SEE! YOU DO HAVE TO BE BAPTIZED TO BE SAVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Spend as much time as possible in this chapter. Be sure to also mention Acts 2:38. Mark 16:16. Acts 22:16. 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism, baptism, baptism, baptism.

Chapter 7. See, we are right about marriage, divorce and remarriage. Romans 7:2-3 We don't know about this struggle Paul describes in the last part of this chapter because we've quit sinning Romans 7:19.

Chapter 8. This chapter is tricky. Don't get confused by the "no condemnation" in Romans 8:1. You have to be "in Christ", for there to be no condemnation. You are only "in Christ" if you were baptized for the right reason, in the right way, into the right church, and then only if you continue worshiping in the right church and repent of every sin you commit.  So, most who think they're in Christ are not actually in Christ and will be condemned. Next, everywhere you see "the Spirit" in this chapter, replace it with "the completed New Testament revelation". And whatever Romans 8:38-39 are saying, they're NOT teaching once saved always saved or perseverance of the saints. Paul says nothing can separate you from God's love. But remember that you can separate yourself from God. Your biggest responsibility here is to prevent people from becoming secure in their salvation and to prevent people from thinking that the Spirit does anything apart from the written word.

Chapters 9-11. We have NO idea what these chapters are about, but we're very, very, very sure that the Calvinists are wrong about them. Romans 11:22 is good. Behold the SEVERITY of God. God is SEVERE. Very SEVERE. Remember God's SEVERITY.

Chapter 12. Be transformed. That means worship correctly without musical instruments and don't have any fun. Transformed people don't wear shorts, don't drink alcohol, don't cuss, etc. If people don't think you're weird, you're probably not transformed enough. Romans 12:20, if your enemy is hungry, feed him, but don't use church funds to feed him.

Chapter 13. This is the Republican chapter. Don't break the speed limit or you'll go to hell. Romans 13:4 is why we support the death penalty.

Chapter 14. The stricter you are the stronger your faith is. And this chapter for sure isn't saying that we can disagree about important stuff like musical instruments. We're not sure which disagreements are allowed, but we're pretty sure it's okay to be a vegetarian (Romans 14:2), but we can't imagine why anyone would want to do that. What would you eat at a pot luck if you were a vegetarian? Maybe some brethren in California are vegetarians? Anyway, even though Romans 14:21 says essentially the same thing about wine as it does meat, you're weird if you don't eat meat. And you still for sure can't drink alcohol of any kind, including wine. We can't disagree about that.

Chapter 15. Romans 15:4 means to use the Old Testament when it supports our doctrine. We learn that shorts are sin from the priests' garments and most importantly we learn that musical instruments are sin from Nadab and Abihu (ironically). Don't get too carried away with Old Testament examples because the Old Testament has been nailed to the cross and has no authority. Sometimes, though, we need more than Romans chapter 1 when teaching about homosexuality, and the story of Sodom comes in very handy then. The rest of chapter 15 basically says "be good" and then something about Paul's travels.

Chapter 16. Romans 16:16! See! We have the right name! Church(es) of Christ!!! Never mind the first half of verse 16 because kissing is weird and we don't do that any more. Romans 16:17! Withdraw from everyone who disagrees! By the way, pretend there are no women in this chapter. Look over there, a squirrel! (Whew! that was close! Someone almost said "Phoebe". It's probably best to avoid talking about Phoebe, but if someone brings it up you need to be ready. Maybe bring it up yourself if you're feeling bold, but be very careful. Remember that even though Paul calls Phoebe a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, she wasn't a deacon of any church. Women can't be deacons. Everyone knows that. She probably was a really good cook and maybe a good ladies Bible class teacher. She was probably a great helper for her husband, whoever he was. The worst and hardest is if someone notices Junia. Avoid Junia no matter how bold you feel. No matter what Paul said about Junia, she was not an apostle. If someone does bring her up, be sure to throw shade at translations that say she was "of note among the apostles". Throwing shade at almost every English translation is your only hope with Junia. Man, it sure would have been nice if Paul had put verses 16 and 17 at the beginning of this chapter so then we could have covered those verses and conveniently run out of time before Paul starts commending all these women.)

Whew. Some of those chapters were really difficult. Peter wasn't kidding when he said that some of what Paul wrote was difficult to understand. Not impossible, but difficult. Follow this guide and you'll be okay.

CENI

CENI stands for Command, Example, and Necessary Inference. The conservative churches of Christ claim to require a command, example, or necessary inference in the Bible for everything they do. They teach CENI as the only acceptable hermeneutic.

Doy Moyer argues in his book Mind Your King and in various sermons that CENI is not a hermeneutic system. Rather, it simply describes the communication process. Moyer argues that the communicator tells, shows, or implies. Tell, Show, Imply (TSI) is Moyer's restatement of CENI from the communicator's point of view. The receptor perceives a command, example, or makes an inference. So, CENI or TSI only reveals the information, the raw data which must be interpreted and applied. Interpretation and application are not addressed with CENI or TSI. Since hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, CENI cannot be a hermeneutic system.

I mostly agree with brother Moyer's sagacious observation. I think there are more nonverbal cues involved, even in written communication. Also, the relationship between the communicator and the receptor add a lot of nuance that can't really be captured with TSI. However, I agree that generally, when someone criticizes or teaches CENI as a hermeneutic system, they are conflating the verbal communication process with the science of interpreting what has been communicated. Stated another way, CENI is neither a good nor a bad hermeneutic system because it isn't a hermeneutic system.

Since this is true, what then about hermeneutics in the conservative churches of Christ? When CENI is claimed as a hermeneutic, that ultimately becomes another way of saying, "We just do what the Bible says." I've argued in a series of posts that nobody does "just what the Bible says." Everyone who claims that the Bible is authoritative interprets and applies the Bible. We must make a distinction between what the Bible actually says and our own interpretations of the Bible. What the Bible actually says is the CENI, the raw data. Our interpretation is the result of applying our hermeneutic system to the CENI. Everyone interprets the Bible. Every. One.

What is missing in conservative churches of Christ is a well-defined hermeneutic. Calling CENI a hermeneutic is not good enough. What is needed is a consistent set of principles that can guide one in the interpretation and application of the Bible. This is lacking in those who claim CENI as their hermeneutic.

I'm not arguing that CENI is invalid. I'm arguing that CENI is NOT a hermeneutic. Sure, you can find examples of folks following CENI in the New Testament. Doy Moyer argues (Mind Your King, p34-37) that it's CENI that instructs Peter in Acts 10. I've heard it argued elsewhere that it's CENI that comes up with the letter to the church at Antioch in Acts 15. I don't disagree that you'll find examples of CENI in the New Testament. But it is not true that EVERY time there is communication from God that the recipient of the communication only adhered to the CENI and nothing more. There are several examples where interpreters went beyond CENI to make an application of Scripture or other commands from God. (1 Cor. 9:9-10; Gal. 3:16, 4:24-31, et al. This could be multiplied many times over where NT authors make an application that takes many liberties with the text and goes well beyond what is explicitly stated or necessarily implied in the Hebrew Scripture.)

Interpreting the Bible is hard work. Volumes upon volumes have been written about how to interpret Scripture, both at the scholarly and popular level. Some good popular works on this topic are How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart) and Scripture and the Authority of God (N.T. Wright). Since Scripture is living and powerful (Heb. 4:12) and it guides a living body (the church) through a living and changing creation, it makes sense that the methods for interpreting it will change over time. It's dangerous hubris to say or imply or act as if "We've figured out the Bible and we just do what it says."

In my resistance to CENI as a hermeneutic over the years, I've heard and read several attacks of a straw man. Those defending CENI suggest that there are some who wish to do away with "examples" and "necessary inferences" as sources for authority and only stick with commands. That's not my point at all. Maybe some have suggested this, but most objections to CENI do not suggest that we follow "commands only". My point is that there are commands, examples, and necessary inferences in the Bible that do not apply to 21st century Christians. Every 21st century Christian lives by this reality to some degree or another. We need to frankly admit this, that we violate direct commandments in the New Testament, and get busy working out WHY we do this. What I've found is that there is a variety of reasons that words in ancient texts don't apply today and there is a lot of room for diversity of interpretation and application. How closely someone's interpretation resembles yours is not a reliable gauge for his sincerity or respect for the Bible's authority.

In summary, CENI as a hermeneutic is just another way of saying, "We just do what the Bible says." This statement is patently and demonstrably false for everyone who claims it. Nobody just does what the Bible says. Everyone interprets the Bible to make application to their setting and situation. Many deny that they interpret the Bible and claim to "just do what the Bible says", but this is excessive arrogance at worst and dangerous ignorance at best. Don't obstinately refuse to admit that you interpret the Bible. Interpretation, per se, is not a bad thing. Sure, there are bad interpretations. Ironically, many bad interpretations grow out of denying interpretation.

Good interpretation is hard work. It requires depending on and respecting modern scholarship. It requires community. It must above all be Christ centered and love biased.