2012/07/24

perspective

I liked this article in Patrol Magazine, responding to a widely-cited column from the weekend's New York Times.  The latter talked of decline - specifically in the American Episcopal church - reflected in falling congregations.  Fitzgerald - editor at Patrol - argues
But the bottom line is, though it may seem self-evident that declining church attendance is evidence of something gone wrong, would we rather see churches that accommodate society’s ills grow? Isn’t it more likely that a faith that asks more than we can naturally give, that compels us to believe in things we can’t see, and calls us to live in ways that are counter to our own self interests, would find itself at odds with the prevailing culture?
And that seems very much in line with what I blogged about  a few months back, motivated by a quote from Rick Warren asserting almost the opposite - that the churches of which Fitzgerald speaks are 'in decline' precisely because they have embraced the prevailing culture. Which perspective makes more sense?

2012/07/18

ain't seen nothing yet

There are people trying to whip up anti-Creationist sentiment against some of England's new free schools.  Depending on whom you believe, this is a great affront to science - and a damage to some children's education - or a storm in a mis-communicated tea-cup.  My guess would be that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  It would be illegal to teach young earth creationism as a scientific theory, as I understand it, and so science lessons are not under direct threat.  On the other hand, they might be undermined by the tone of religious education lessons, one supposes, depending on how successfully the teachers can handle nuanced epistemology.  It seems reasonable to fear the worst, if those setting up the free schools have a track record on this sort of stuff.

What baffles me, though, is the way that Creationism seems to get to be the totemic issue in the utterly false debate about science versus faith.  Sure, it's nice stark place to make a comparison - if you overlook the way that Genesis chapter 1 is quite clearly a form of stylized writing, not unlike a poem.  But, really, there are  countless bible stories which those of a fundamentalist disposition might take as historical accounts (talking donkeys?  the sun standing still?) when they are really very difficult to reconcile with our normal experience of the world.  Worse, the chronology - or, indeed, the outright historicity - of some of the biblical passages which purport to give an account of past events is also at odds with the best available archaeology.

We may brush aside Genesis as an ahistorical story to make a point about the sovereignty of God - and his character in contrast to that of the gods in the Babylonian legends.  But if we observe that there is scant evidence for David being the great king who he is presented as, we begin to strike at the heart of a much bigger, broader tradition of biblical interpretation.  Christians - even thoughtful educated ones - would rather look the other way than face up to the fact that St. Paul almost certainly didn't write all the letters which bear his name.  And when questions arise about the accuracy of the biblical text we have received, well, we'd just rather not think about that.

Scholarship has a huge amount to say about the biblical text, its transmission and original content, the context and timing of its writing, and much else beside.  The theories of all those scholars will not be precise or perfect, and will be subject to revision over time.  Taken together, though, the study which has gone into the history, archaeology, linguistics, and the rest, has a huge amount to say to biblical interpretation.  And most of it is barred from being heard in our churches.

Instead we too often - particularly in the Evangelical world - have the conceit that we can take an English translation made in the 21st century and discern the intention of the original authors from reading it alone.  Even if someone could come to this bible afresh for the first time as an educated adult, the very language they speak, the language in which the translation is expressed, and the way in which we construct knowledge as a society have all co-evolved in the years since the text was written.


Young Earth Creationism is a great topic for secular humanists to get concerned about in education.  It does indeed represent a threat to the good teaching of science: but really it's just scratching the surface of a mind-set which is all too often thoroughly wedded to a pre-modern way of viewing things.  There are much bigger fish to fry.