The Blinne Blog

Episcopal Fudge

Yesterday, the episcopal church passed a resolution that supposedly was a compromise between its beliefs concerning the rights of gays and lesbians and the concerns of the greater Anglican Communion for fidelity to Scripture and Apostolic tradition. You would think that I as a moderate Evangelical would be pleased -- and you would be dead wrong. As for the content of the "compromise" I will leave that critique to the eloquent statements on both the left and right. I did notice something, though, in the critique on the left by Bishop Chane that caught my eye:

The process that brought about the reconsideration of this matter failed to honor the integrity of the House of Deputies by bringing undue pressure to bear on that body.

I would like to expand on this. The whole point of this exercise was to respond to the Windsor Report of the Anglican Communion. When V. Gene Robinson became a bishop in 2003, it created a firestorm that threatened to rip the Anglican Communion apart. The Archbishop of Canterbury asked for a compromise and got it in the form of the Windsor Report. This report requested that the Episcopal Church show regret for this action and place moratoria on both blessing same-sex unions and having practicing homosexuals become bishops (but not priests). If the Episcopal church did not accede to the request they would in effect chose not to participate as a representative to the Anglican Communion. There was no response for three years. Why? Because according to the church, only the General Convention can do this.

Fast forward three years. Before I start I need to explain some process. There are two houses in the Episcopal Church, Bishops and Deputies. Different legislation comes from different houses. If it passes one house it needs to be approved by the other. If it fails to pass one house it is dead. Furthermore, any similar legislation cannot be taken up unless there is a 2/3 vote for reconsideration. Canon law allows for a joint session to be called by the Presiding Bishop under extreme circumstances. The response to Windsor was in A161 which originated from Deputies. It read as follows:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. Accordingly, we are obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to refrain from the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same-sex unions at this time, thereby concurring with the Windsor Report in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention affirm the need to maintain a breadth of responses to situations of pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians in this Church.

Resolved that this General Convention apologize to those gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their supporters hurt by these decisions.

This failed to realize that Windsor was already a compromise. Even so, there truly existed no middle ground here and it went down to defeat and was condemned by both the left and the right. A substitute to effect a moratorium was ruled unconstitutional. Motion to reconsider failed. At this point, it should have been dead. But then something happened. PB Griswold panicked. He said:

"If we don't have something substantial, it will be very difficult for the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite the Presiding Bishop to the Lambeth Conference. I do know the complexity of what the Archbishop dealing with, in communion terms, and he needs for something clear to come from the Episcopal Church."

Well, duh! So, he engineered a joint session and proposed and got passed this:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report's invitation to engage in a process of heaing and reconcilation; and be it further

Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecreation of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

While this was debated in the house of deputies PB-elect Schori made a statement that the church wasn't really of two minds but conjoined twins. Deputies was forced to suspend its rules to not reconsider like matters. So, in four hours the bishops were able to act in what constitutes a non-binding promise (at least that what dissenting bishops Chane says). PB-elect Schori apparently concurs.

The resolution that stands before you is far from adequate but it is the best we are going to do. I am fully committed to the full inclusion of gays and lesbians. I do not understand this resolution as slamming the door.

Furthermore, the "promise" was not able to be kept during the GC itself. The bishop-elect of the diocese of Northern California who was married three times and divorced twice was approved. This would seem to "consecrating someone whose manner of life present a challenge to the wider church"

Everybody waited three long years for this because the bishops need approval from the representatives of the people. What we saw was the bishops acting unilaterally when it became apparent that they would get kicked out of their club because the people on the left and right rejected the phony compromise based on principle. So, against the rules they reintroduced an even phonier compromise that consisted something that was always in their power to do. I can think of nothing else than to call this ecclesiastical tyranny.

God and Katrina

When natural disasters happen inevitably Christians (including myself) embark on a task known as a theodicy. A theodicy defends God's righteousness against the apparent injustice of the event in question. Tony Campolo does this for Katrina.

There are still other religionists who take the opportunity to tell us that God is punishing America for its many sins. Undoubtedly, there are some al-Qaeda fanatics who right now are saying that Katrina is the hand of God, striking America for what we have done to the people of Iraq and to the Palestinians. Furthermore, there are Christians who, in the weeks to come, can be counted on to thunder from their pulpits that Katrina is God’s wrath against the immorality of this nation, pointing out that New Orleans is the epitome of our national degradation and debauchery. To all of this I say, "Wrong."

The God revealed in Jesus did not come into the world "to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." (John 3:17) There can be no arguments over the claim that, for a variety of reasons, our nation deserves punishment. But when the Bible tells us about the grace of God, it is giving us the good news that our loving God does not give us what we truly deserve. Certainly, God would not create suffering for innocent people, who were--for the most part--Katrina’s victims.

Dr. Campolo is absolutely right that God would not create such suffering amongst the poor. Throughout church history theodicies are the occasion where the greatest theologians most erred because they said too much. For example, errors in Leibnitz' theodicy that this world is the best of all possible worlds was mercilessly critiqued in Voltaire's Candide. Campolo commits an error by denying God's omnipotence. We cannot go there any more than we can go where the religionists above went. When we do a theodicy Scripture guides us where not to go but does not allow relief of a theodicy that is bullet-proof. Silence and humility are the better part of wisdom for a theodicy.

So, if poor people are not the particular object of God's wrath -- Scripture is replete with the concept that God always identifies with the poor and oppressed -- then what's going on here? Could it be the wrong sins are being identified as a cause of this hurricane? If Dr. Campolo is right about the poor --  and I believe he is -- then maybe it is the very oppression of the poor that is being judged.

Let's consider what has happened. The poor in New Orleans could not escape even when their very lives depended upon it. Thanks to the hurricane they now have an opportunity to escape the crushing crime and poverty. This is not to say that many will want to return. But, there are also many that may choose to leave.  For those who do, it is incumbent upon those who call ourselves Christian to welcome our new neighbors and make them a valued part of their new communities. That means housing and jobs and dignity. Their government failed them not only after the hurricane but also before. Let's not fail them again.

We're All Moderates and Catholics

The word catholic means universal. So, in that sense all Christians are little-c catholics. In the midst of an otherwise decent editorial I found an interesting error in David Brooks concerning the Roberts' nomination. First, the quote. A Competent Conservative - New York Times.

Confirmation battles have come to seem of late like occasions for bitterly divided Catholics to turn political battles into holy war Armageddons. Most of the main Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are Catholics who are liberal or moderate (Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Leahy), and many of the most controversial judges or nominees are Catholics who are conservative (Scalia, Thomas, Pryor). When they face off, you get this brutal and elemental conflict over the role morality should play in public life.

My question who is the moderate amongst the senators mentioned? And when did Justice Thomas, an Episcopalian, become Catholic? Thomas may very well be Anglo-Catholic and attended a Catholic elementary school but that is not the same thing.  It seems that being a moderate Catholic is where it's at these days. I guess anybody can be one, too. Hat tip: Polipundit.

Evolutionary Straw Men

The New York Times reported today that a leading theologian of the Roman Catholic Church is concerned that the view of the Church with respect to evolution is being misrepresented.

The cardinal, Christoph Schoenborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church's position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process. [emphasis mine]

Evangelical and Catholic scientists expressed dismay with the Cardinal's statements.

Dr. Francis Collins, who headed the official American effort to decipher the human genome, and who describes himself as a Christian, though not a Catholic, said Cardinal Schönborn's essay looked like "a step in the wrong direction" and said he feared that it "may represent some backpedaling from what scientifically is a very compelling conclusion, especially now that we have the ability to study DNA."

"There is a deep and growing chasm between the scientific and the spiritual world views," he went on. "To the extent that the cardinal's essay makes believing scientists less and less comfortable inhabiting the middle ground, it is unfortunate. It makes me uneasy."

"Unguided," "unplanned," "random" and "natural" are all adjectives that biologists might apply to the process of evolution, said Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown and a Catholic. But even so, he said, evolution "can fall within God's providential plan." He added: "Science cannot rule it out. Science cannot speak on this."

So have evolutionists misrepresented the Catholic Church's doctrine or is it the other way around? The following is a description of it at the National Center for Science Education web site:

Evolutionary Creationism (EC). Despite its name, evolutionary creationism is actually a type of evolution. Here, God the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe according to his plan. From a scientific point of view, evolutionary creationism is hardly distinguishable from Theistic evolution, which follows it on the continuum. The differences between EC and Theistic evolution lie not in science, but in theology, with EC being held by more conservative (evangelical) Christians (D. Lamoreaux, p.c). I will therefore move on to theistic evolution.

Theistic Evolution (TE). Theistic Evolution is a theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature. Not just the physical laws, either: it is acceptable to TEs that one species can give rise to another; they accept descent with modification. TEs vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene — some slide pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn slide closer to PCs. In one form or another, TE is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church. In 1996, Pope John Paul II reiterated the Catholic TE position, in which God created, evolution happened, humans may indeed be descended from more primitive forms, but the Hand of God was required for the production of the human soul. (John Paul II, 1996).

I included the description of evolutionary creationism (my position) because I find that the description was a fair description of what I believe. The description of the Catholic view in no way described it as endorsing "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection". I share Drs. Collins' and Miller's concerns in that the statement could drive Evangelical and Catholic scientists away from their respective faiths by removing the middle ground.

A Way Out

With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor we will probably embark on another divisive episode on top of the divisive episodes we have seen in the early 21st Century. Justice Connor's career was marked as being in the middle and she also was associated with compromise in church/state relationships. But how well has this compromise served us as Evangelicals living in the United States? Noah Feldman wrote a provocative piece in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine. Here he turned the compromise on its head.

In the courts, the arrangement that I'm proposing would entail abandoning the Lemon requirement that state action must have a secular purpose and secular effects, as well as O'Connor's idea that the state must not ''endorse'' religion. For these two tests, the courts should substitute the two guiding rules that historically lay at the core of our church-state experiment before legal secularism or values evangelicalism came on the scene: the state may neither coerce anyone in matters of religion nor expend its resources so as to support religious institutions and practices, whether generic or particular. These constitutional principles, reduced to their core, can be captured in a simple slogan: no coercion and no money. If no one is being coerced by the government, and if the government is not spending its money to build religious-themed monuments or support religious institutions and practices, the courts should hold that the Constitution is not violated.

Admittedly, this approach goes against the trends of the last several decades, which are for stricter regulation of public religious symbolism and more permissive authorization of government financing and support for religion. At first blush, then, the proposal may strike both sides of the current debate as mistaken, since it requires each to give up some victories in exchange for an alternative solution. Nonetheless this approach is not only faithful to our constitutional traditions; it also stands a chance of winning over secularists and evangelicals alike and beginning to close the rift between them.

As Evangelicals such a proposal is worthy of our consideration. This is because the current compromise is corrupting us. For example, those who propose Intelligent Design pretend that such a position is motivated by secular rather than religious reason. Truth is, neither those who support nor those who oppose Intelligent Design believe this. I believe in design for religious rather than scientific reasons, but I oppose so-called "Intelligent Design" because it is not honest about its motivations. By insisting on a secular purpose our religious expression is muted. The corrupting influence is that we are tempted to equivocate in order to be able to speak in the public square. Ironically, succumbing to that temptation lessens our power because in the end our witness is dependent on our truthfulness.

The other temptation is related to money. The government has their own "golden rule": He who has the gold makes the rules. When we accept government money for faith-based institutions we must accept the restrictions. This also corrupts us. One of these restrictions disallows proselytizing. While we ought not force someone to be converted, an Evangelical who cannot speak the "evangel", the good news, is a contradiction in terms. This temptation gets resolved either by not preaching the Good News or not helping the poor. The Bible makes neither of these optional.

In short, Feldman provides a way out and is a reasonable proposal as seen at least by this Evangelical. I don't have a sense how this will play with the secularists but if it is acceptable to them then maybe we can move beyond the "Culture Wars".

Pathological Science

Since I am in both the scientific and Evangelical communities, I've used my position to explain the scientific community to the Evangelical one, specifically the subgroup that believes in YEC and ID. Now I'm going to turn it around. When the scientific community looks at things like YEC and ID they scratch their heads. Worse, they come up with a theocratic conspiracy theory (not very parsimonious IMHO).

Irving Landmuir gave a talk in 1953 about what he termed as pathological science. This seems to explain some of the crazy scientific conclusions. Hat Tip: Dr. Randy Isaac, Executive Director of the American Scientific Affliation. His final note is well taken "No religious group has a monopoly on pathological science."

The characteristics of this Davis-Barnes experiment and the N-rays and the mitogenetic rays, they have things in common. These are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention. Usually hundreds of papers have been published upon them. Sometimes they have lasted for fifteen or twenty years and then they gradually die away. [emphasis mine]

Now, the characteristic rules are these

Symptoms of Pathological Science:

1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.

A lot of the "science" in ID and YEC have the above characteristics. Two approaches have come out of the scientific community in how to deal with what they believe is bad science (correctly IMHO). One treats the mistake as sincere and the other seeks to do battle with conspiracies. How the scientific community dealt with the Kansas situation is an example of the former. I encourage my scientific and engineering colleagues to continue along that path. If the other path is taken and you falsely accuse people of a conspiracy or belittle their faith it will only harden the bad science.

Bono's Crusade

U2's Bono has been trying to help the poor in Africa for years. Recently, he has hit on a winning strategy, courting Evangelicals. In doing so, he got President Bush and the G8 to agree to erase the debt to many of the world's poorest nations.

The Guardian Unlimited noted the following:

He has not been afraid to use his Christian faith to appeal to the American religious right, dining with Billy Graham and his son Franklin, and quoting Gospel verses to Jesse Helms, which reduced the 83-year-old Republican to tears.

Bono has spent six years trying to change the mindset of the world's most powerful country in relation to its poorest continent, risking his own reputation and that of his band by associating with some of the most controversial figures in American public life.

The Guardian doesn't go into details in how Bono wooed Evangelicals but BeliefNet does:

Usually when the words “evangelical” and “poverty” appear in the same sentence, the minister at the helm is Jim Wallis, Ron Sider, or Tony Campolo. And when Rick Warren is written and talked about, it’s almost never in the context of any political issue.

But Warren, who is the pastor of Saddleback Church, a megachurch in Lake Forest, California and the author of the blockbuster book “The Purpose-Driven Life,” is diving into the issue of Christian responsibility to combat global poverty.

The move took the form of an open letter campaign to President Bush, launched June 3 by Warren together with heavyweights Billy Graham and British evangelical John Stott and sent to over 150,000 evangelicals nationwide.

“I deeply believe that if we as evangelicals remain silent and do not speak up in defense of the poor, we lose our credibility and our right to witness about God's love for the world,” Warren wrote in his appeal for participants in the campaign.

A top evangelical leader, Warren’s support lends powerful weight to the cause of ending global poverty. Barna polls have found that Warren comes in near the top of the list when pastors are asked who they feel is the most influential evangelical leader. He was listed first in the “Time” magazine list of the 25 most influential evangelicals, along with other more traditionally political evangelical leaders such as NAE president Ted Haggard and Southern Baptist Richard Land. 

Specifically, Bono is tapping into a concept known as creation care. In it Christians have a stewardship not only of the environment but also of humanity. Time had an issue with the Top 25 most influential Evangelicals. Bono tops the list of those who influence Evangelicals. Howard Dean take note. This is how it is done.

Intelligent Design: An Evangelical Critique

Recently, I have been very critical of Intelligent Design. Why would an Evangelical Christian, even a scientific one, do that? Am I like Phillip Johnson contends, worse than an atheist? I do this because in addition to believing that Intelligent Design is scientifically unsound, I believe that it is unbiblical. For those of you who don't care about whether Intelligent Design is biblical then this is not for you. Go to Panda's Thumb. There's plenty of fodder there. I'm speaking to those who do care.

There are numerous passages of Scripture that deals with God as designer. One of them is Psalm 139.

139:14 I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing.²²You knew me thoroughly;²³

139:15 my bones were not hidden from you,when²⁴ I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth.²⁵

Before I get to my main point, I would like to address an issue with interpretation of Genesis in light of YEC. Note that I am using the Net Bible translation. I'm using this one because it has a good technical commentary and also has good conservative credentials (being endorsed by Chuck Swindoll and Wayne Grudem). I would like to point out note 25.

²⁵ sn The phrase depths of the earth may be metaphorical (euphemistic) or it may reflect a prescientific belief about the origins of the embryo deep beneath the earth's surface (see H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 96-97). Job 1:21 also closely associates the mother's womb with the earth.

When the science is truly uncontroverted (embryos do not grow in the ground) the possibility of metaphor and pre-scientific accommodation is allowed, even in Evangelical exegesis.  Note that kind of phraseology is used in both Genesis 1:24 where animals were produced by the earth and Genesis 2:19 where Adam is formed out of the ground. Thus, the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is not a necessary one. In order to show a non-literal interpretation to be the correct one (or more to the point which non-literal interpretation is correct) requires more support. My limited point here is that such an interpretation is possible.

Back to my main point. Regardless of the use of metaphor or pre-scientific accommodation, Psalm 139 is clear that the development of the embryo is designed by God. Neo-Darwinism makes the argument that embryonic development and evolution are driven by the same underlying genetic and epigenetic mechanisms. Jonathan Wells got his PhD in developmental biology. He told his colleagues at Berkeley:

Introduction to Jonathan Wells
To: Participants in the Evolutionary Biology Virtual Discussion Group
From: Jonathan Wells

Thank you for inviting me to participate in your discussions. Let me begin by introducing myself.

I first became interested in evolution as an undergraduate at Princeton, where I studied geology. Years later, I also became interested in religion and studied theology at Yale, where I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on the 19th-century Darwinian controversies. [1] At that time, I learned that the historical conflict between Christian theology and Darwinian evolution had almost nothing to do with biblical chronology, but turned primarily on the issue of design. Pursuing my interest in evolution, I came to Berkeley in 1989 to study embryology, since understanding how organisms develop is obviously relevant to understanding how they evolve. I am now finishing a second Ph.D. dissertation on mechanisms of early development in frog embryos. [emphasis mine]

Back then Jonathan Wells saw a connection. Now he participates in seminars that says there is a discontinuity of development and evolution. Not only does he seek to go against evolution but also against development. Note this quote:

To be sure, genes (DNA sequences) affect development, but many lines of research suggest that body plans and other morphological features are laid down prior to and largely independently of gene expression.

Excuse me? How come identical twins are identical? Identical genes by and large produce identical morphology. In his nonsensical mess, he does give a decent definition (if you take out the allegedly and note that natural selection is not the only mechanism for genetic change):

In neo-Darwinism, evolution is explained by the natural selection of small mutational changes in the "genetic programs" that allegedly control embryonic development.

Why am I making such a big deal about the connection between development and evolution?  Biblically speaking, development is designed. If something else uses the same or similar mechanism as something already shown to be designed then you have an effective argument that the evolutionary process is designed also.

There is one very big practical problem with my argument, though. It is not a scientific argument, but it's a Biblical one. The apologetic value is slight because it argues for evolution to Evangelicals but doesn't argue the Gospel to evolutionists. This should not be sneezed at however because there are many young Evangelical scientists who might not now lose their faith because they are persuaded that the evolutionary mechanism is true.

There is a reason why science cannot answer this question. ID needs to understand a theological concept known as concursus. Concursus is the doctrine that God in his Providence acts through and with second causes.  (Second causes are those things in which God acts indirectly.)  God's design while not hidden from His children is thus hidden from science. Trying to prove design from science is a fool's errand. Or put differently, if you want to know if something is designed, talk to the designer.

Christian Apologist Lead Astray By Intelligent Design Movement

Update: A reader notified me that the way I quoted was unclear. I've reformatted my entry to make it clear who is talking.

As you will see from the following interview Lee Strobel has a subtle, penetrating, mind and this has served him well in his apologetics works. But, he's not a scientist and he is dependent on scientists who are Christians to give him good information. Unfortunately, he has not been served well by them. Hat Tip: Short Attention Span.

Strobel is interviewed by  Christianity Today Magazine.

Christianity Today: You start your book with a scene with you as a young reporter. You're sent to West Virginia, where a bunch of religious townspeople are protesting the teaching of evolution in their textbooks. I was wondering if you thought that some of the things going on in public schools today would be similar to that.

Lee Strobel: If you look at public opinion polls, the public at large is generally skeptical about Darwinism.  It just doesn't ring true to a lot of people. There's an underlying widespread skepticism that neo-Darwinism could explain the diversity of life.

I take a different approach to that than some people do. I want more evolution to be taught, not less. What I mean by that is, right now, students are only getting one side of the coin. They're only getting a cursory overview of what neo-Darwinism is and being told some facts that some people believe support it. I want them to hear more about it. I want them to hear the evidence that challenges neo-Darwinism. I want students to be able to critically think about whether or not this makes sense. I want them to be free to follow the evidence wherever it points. That, to me, is academic freedom, that they should be able to pursue the evidence.

I'm not saying that Intelligent Design ought to be taught in public schools. I am saying that kids ought to be open to possibilities and pursue the evidence wherever it points, including in that direction.

The Blinne Blog: Give Strobel some points for not just cheer leading for Intelligent Design. You get the sense (and this is near-universal in the Evangelical community) that if you laid all the cards on the table Intelligent Design has the winning hand. Other more subtle proponents might say Intelligent Design doesn't have a strong hand, but neo-Darwinism has a weaker one. This is the root of the average Christian's opposition to how Darwinism is taught in the Public Schools.

And it is a pack of goods.

First Young Earth Creation and now Intelligent Design have been telling Christians that Darwinism is on the run. This is simply not true. There are thousands of papers describing in detail a host of evolutionary pathways. These pathways include many of Behe's supposedly irreducibly complex systems. Many of these papers are very recent. Not only do scientists know that the mechanisms of evolution work, but there is greater understanding how it works. The latter part could be used in a design argument because the genetic mechanism is quite beautiful. (Listen to the Francis Collins keynote on the ASA web site.) Anthony Flew is now being tauted by the Intelligent Design community. He stopped being an atheist because he believed neo-Darwinism, not because he doubted it. Design and Darwinism are not by necessity mutually-exclusive categories.  Even if the Darwinists are terribly self-deceived it is an utterly wrong to characterize them with the  "on-the-run" self-perception. Unfortunately, it is the Christian lay people who have been deceived. This produces the slander of the scientists that they are just a bunch of atheistic materialists. Some are, but many are not.

Christianity Today: How can Intelligent Design get past the creationist label?

Lee Strobel: It's always the Darwinists who bring that up. I've done this on my TV show, Faith Under Fire, where we'll have a debate between someone who is convinced of Intelligent Design versus a Darwinist. The Intelligent Design person brings up scientific data and arguments based on scientific evidence to support his or her beliefs. And then it goes to the other side, and that person is immediately accused of injecting faith and injecting religion and trying to be a subterfuge to teach the Bible in schools.

Well, time out here, who's bringing up religion? I didn't hear the Intelligent Design advocate bring up religion. It's being brought up by the other side. It's an ad hominem argument that Darwinists use to throw sand in people's eyes to suggest that this is just biblical creationism in another disguise. What I'd like to see is the debate centered on the evidence and the data. Why are people so afraid of evidence that happens to point toward an affirmation of what the vast majority of people on the Earth believe in the first place?

The Blinne Blog: As a Christian who believes in intelligent design (the concept, not the movement) I say start by  stopping the slander of scientists.  The mis-appraisal of the state of science has caused a huge mutual misconception between scientists and Evangelicals. Evangelicals say they only want the science taught. If that was so, then it would be neo-Darwinism, because the science taught by Intelligent Design is utter, complete garbage. The scientists try to figure us out and only can figure that this is just re-packaged creationism, not realizing that we really think a sow's ear is a silk purse. We really believe that in a fair fight we would win. If we don't do a brutally honest self-appraisal and fast, good men like Lee Strobel will lose their hard-fought reputation and the good they have done will be tainted.

Teaching the Controversy: A Proposal

A constant refrain from intelligent design proponents is that we need to teach the controversy. On the other side we have science educators who say, no we don't. I say use the controversy to teach good science. My proposal is a result of a challenge by Henry Gee in Nature.

What we really need is a cadre of religious scientists who can both stand up for their beliefs, and realize that they don't need intelligent design to stick their faith and work together.

These brave scientists should be prepared to expose intelligent design for the nonsense it is.

Fair enough. This Evangelical scientist will attempt to fill the gap. Here is what is needed in science education:

1. Have a clear definition of both science and methodological naturalism. Science is a natural tool seeking natural answers. There may exist supernatural answers but this is beyond the ken of science. Methodological naturalism assumes there exists a natural answer to a natural problem. If such an answer does not exist you are attempting to prove a negative and thus it cannot be done in science.
   
2. Distinguish metaphysical inferences about nature from science. I believe both in evolution and a designer. I look at the order of the Universe and the beauty of how evolution elegantly searches a solution space and I see a Designer behind it. Non-religious scientists see a self-existent Universe run by Natural Law. Science cannot tell us which metaphysical inference is true. Good grief, there's a reason why Aristotle called called this discipline "above physics". Let science be science and answer the "what" question and leave the "why" question to other disciplines. If the reason why certain topics are not brought up is because of the intentional self-limitation of the scientific method, then the conflict can be resolved without  crushing  students' faiths. The way many religious people view science is a bunch of elitists looking down and judging their faith. By stressing the deliberate limitations of science here, the misconception can be diffused.
3. Acknowledge the controversy but teach the science. This is the core of my proposal. Some of Intelligent Design theory is scientifically testable. Use these to show how science advances and what characterizes good and bad science.
   
   Behe had a number of concerns about Evolution in that Irreducible Complexity was something that Evolution couldn't overcome. Since Behe originally came up with his thesis the genomic revolution in Biology occurred. Biology students need to know how much progress has been made in Evolutionary Biology in the last decade. If you listen to the ID proponents you would think it was going the other way. By not addressing the concerns it gives science students the wrong impression that ID is simply being silenced.
   
   Here's how it would work in practice. Take some of his specific concerns about the blood clotting cascade, whale transitional forms, the vertebrate immune system etc. and show how they were addressed. These are actually good case studies of how Evolutionary Biology is done in the 21st Century and how it is different from the 19th. When you are done, stress that proving IC does not prove ID and disproving IC does not disprove ID. Science cannot answer that question.
   
   Address why ID does not show up in peer-reviewed journals. Namely, it is because of bad methodology. Americans think science is "democratic" and simply don't understand how real science is done. Here the controversy can be used to teach them. Pick up an issue of Science or Nature and go to the section on methods. Explain how a peer reviewer examines and critiques the methods to make sure that they are valid. Show how a peer reviewer looks for transparency and lack of conflicts of interest in order for the experiment to be replicated by others. A good case study can be found here. In this case study Randy Isaac plays a peer reviewer for an  allegedly censored paper by John Baumgartner. Randy Isaac is Executive Director of the ASA, a group of working scientists who are also Christians.

In conclusion, I believe that reasonable science educators and reasonable Christians can get together to improve the quality of the science education in our country. The level of ignorance of science in this country is quite high and it is not limited to just Conservative Christians. The current controversy can be taken from a huge distraction to an occasion to really teach Americans how science really works and how it is not a threat to people of faith.

Fair Play

Chuck Colson opined concerning fair play in the Kansas evolution controversy.

Americans believe in fair play. If a football or baseball team doesn’t show up, it forfeits the game. If the defense lawyer in a trial puts on no case, the judge is likely to declare a summary judgment to the plaintiff. You play by the rules, or you don’t play.

So why have so many evolutionists apparently decided that the rules don’t apply to them?

This pattern is surfacing once again in Kansas, where you may remember a huge controversy broke out a few years ago, and the evolutionists squashed any other teaching in Kansas.

 

This time the new state board of education is holding hearings to consider revisions that a group of scientists and educators has called for. These would allow Darwin’s theory of evolution to be taught in schools, but they would permit scientific challenges to Darwinism to be taught as well.

The principles espoused by Mr. Colson are good ones. Playing fair in the midst of controversy is a very good principle. Indeed, it is a Christian one. Now for the rest of the story. Keith Miller gave the following explanation for the boycott of the Kansas hearings.

A short explanation for the decision by the scientific community throughout Kansas to not participate in the hearings.

The hearings were set up completely outside of the established process for revising science standards.  The standards revision committee has been working for nearly a year to evaluate and revise the standards.  They have received expert advise and input from both the scientific and science education community throughout the process.  The standards were posted for public and professional input and public forums were held around the state to obtain further input.  Some of the best science teachers in the state were on the standards committee.  When the committee was established the policy was set that any changes to the standards had to be by consensus, or if not, by at least a two thirds majority vote.

The result was an excellent set of revised standards that were submitted to the Board.  At this point the normal procedure would be to send the recommended standards out for external review.  However, the Board majority set them aside and supported another set of revised standards written outside of the process by an 8 member minority of the committee (the "Minority Report").  Those 8 members were all appointed to the committee by the anti-evolution members of the Board.  The Minority Report was written through meetings that were not open meetings and were not conducted through the committee process or in accordance with open meetings law.  The first Minority Report was not submitted through the commissioner's process.  John Calvert founder of the ID Net, who took the lead in writing the minority report and pushing for the hearings, appointed himself and had no official standing.  The Board members who voted for the hearings were the same individuals that had appointed the 8 members to the committee.  The three subcommittee members who are acting as jury for the hearings all hold anti-evolutionary views and publicly stated their support for the minority report before the hearings were ever held.

Thus the reasons that the scientific community has not participated are: 1) that both writing of the Minority Report, and the hearings themselves have occurred in violation of the procedure established for the standards revision, 2) that the scientific and science education community already has had extensive input into the standards and that input has been ignored in favor of the Minority Report, and 3) the hearings were not to inform the Board's decision as the position of the Board members had been publicly stated before the hearings were held.  The scientific community refused to give credibility to this process.

The scientific community in Kansas is now unified and activated in away that I have never seen in the 15 years that I have been here.  Even more so than in 1999 when we went through this before.  There is a growing understanding that the problem we face is a long term one that will require a long term effort at public education about both the nature and limitations of science.  Virtually all the science organizations in the state now recognize how important it is to publicly and clearly reject the false science/faith conflict or warfare view.  The religious community is also becoming activated.  I think that his is one of the very positive outcomes of this mess.  The Kansas scientific community is sending out a very unified voice that evolutionary science is not based on an atheistic or materialistic worldview, and that it is not in any necessary conflict with religious faith.

So, to take Colson's courtroom analogy further what do you do when a side in a conflict cheats? If the other side resigns in protest are they being unfair and do they as a result forfeit any future appeal?

 

Evangelical Scientist Fights for Evolution

Keith B. Miller, a geology professor at Kansas State University, is a leading defender of Evolution in the debate over Evolution versus so-called Intelligent Design before the Kansas State School Board. What makes Keith Miller stand out is that he is not an atheist, but rather is an Evangelical. Dr. Miller is also a member of the American Scientific Affiliation, a group of Christians who are working scientists.

The Boston Globe had the following piece on  Miller:

TOPEKA, Kan. -- As scientists who advocate the new ''intelligent design" theory stepped to the microphone at an auditorium here last week to argue that schools should teach doubts about evolution, a 49-year-old geologist sporting Birkenstock sandals and an early-Beatles haircut sat quietly in an aisle seat in the back row.

The man is an evangelical Christian who says he was ''called by God to be a geologist." But Keith B. Miller, a Kansas State University professor, is also an ardent defender of evolution -- and thus one of established science's most effective weapons in the battle to keep intelligent design, creationism, and other attacks on evolution out of the nation's public schools.

As the theory of evolution pioneered by Charles Darwin comes under assault in communities from Kansas to Pennsylvania to Georgia, Miller carries a message that plays especially well here: Faith, even fundamental Christian faith, is not at odds with Darwin.

''I say I believe God [created life], and I want to find out how," Miller said. ''They say, 'God did it; end of discussion.' "

The Kansas state school board has been ground zero for the evolution debate since 1999, when religious conservatives first drew international attention by having evolution downplayed in the school curriculum. Last week, the antievolution forces were back, arguing in hearings concluding this week that doubts about Darwin be inserted into school standards.

This time, Darwin's critics insist they are not religiously motivated creationists, but are scientists who believe that certain things in the universe, including human life, are too complex to be explained by natural causes and must be the product of an intelligent creator.

They call this theory ''intelligent design," and while they resist publicly declaring that a Christian God's hand is at work, they also suggest that proponents of a key tenet of evolutionary theory -- that changes over time can result in new species -- are atheists or secular humanists.

Stung by these charges, scientists who support evolution are trying to demonstrate that faith and science can exist side by side. ''I want to dispel their extreme worldview that there is any warfare between science and the Christian faith," Miller said.

Miller has been showing science and faith do not conflict long before this particular conflict erupted.

Still, the political winds have shifted to the right in Kansas. The state has a long tradition of moderate, economic-driven Republicanism. Now, religious conservatives are on the rise in the GOP.

That's where Miller, the evangelical geologist, comes in. If the intelligent-design advocates who testified last week downplayed their faith, Miller stressed his in order to demonstrate that orthodox religion is not in conflict with modern science.

A 15-year Kansas resident, Miller has edited a science book, ''Perspectives on an Evolving Creation," in which he and other evangelical Christians challenge intelligent design.

I highly recommend the book above, especially the chapters written by a personal friend of mine, Dr. Terry Gray. Dr. Gray presents a cogent critique of so-called Intelligent Design from an Evangelical who is an expert in Biochemistry.

But because the scientific community opted to boycott the school board hearings, anyone interested in Miller's views last week had to travel to an aging Ramada Inn across town. On Wednesday night, about 100 people did.

Advocates of intelligent design contend that evolutionary theory takes God out of the equation by concluding that all species change is random, unguided, and explained by natural causes.

''Every other code we know came from a mind," said Harris, the medical professor arguing in favor of intelligent design. ''To deduce that DNA codes came from a mind is not irresponsible."

But Miller insists that ''science does not affirm or deny the existence of a creator. It is simply silent on the existence or action of God." He accused proponents of intelligent design of resorting to a ''God of the gaps," whose hand is only visible when science can't solve life's riddles.

The description that Evolution is unguided angers Dr. Miller. The following quote of Dr. Miller from an ASA discussion board shows what motivates him:

This next change is the most extraordinary part of the ID changes to the standards.  THEY have changed the description of evolutionary science in the standards to include words such as "unguided and undirected."  THEY explicitly describe evolutionary science in the Minority Report as a Godless, purposeless, unguided process.  The standards submitted by the committee have no such language, nor do they imply anywhere that science, or more specifically evolutionary theory, is in anyway based on materialism or atheism.  It is the ID proposal, and the ID testimony before the board, that describes evolution in this way.  This angers me greatly.  The ID advocates are so intent to getting their views in the science curriculum that they are willing to describe evolution in the same way as Dawkins!  They even quoted him in the hearings to justify their definition.  I do not want Kansas children told that evolution is unguided and purposeless!!

 

Racial Threats Causes Evacuation at Christian College

Originally Posted: 4/24/2005

The official denominational college for the Evangelical Free Church of America (the denomination to which I belong) had an ugly racial incident this week. The New York Times reported the following:

Scores of African-American and Hispanic students at a small Evangelical Christian college here missed classes and were set to spend a second night in seclusion on Friday, after a series of threatening racist letters spurred their evacuation from the campus. Officials at Trinity International University, a conservative Bible-based school headquartered in this village 30 miles north of Chicago, said three students, two of them black and one Hispanic, had received hate-filled handwritten notes through the campus mail over two weeks.

The officials said they urged nearly 200 minority undergraduates to leave their dormitories after the third letter arrived on Thursday because it included growing threats of violence and was sent within days of the anniversaries of the Columbine school shooting in Colorado, the Oklahoma City bombing and Hitler's birth.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson helped to diffuse some of the tension:

The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, who met on Friday afternoon with recipients of the letters as well as other students, professors and parents, praised the institution's record on race and its response to the letters.

"What is painful to me today is to talk to these students - so young, so beautiful - who feel like a target is on their back because they are black," he told reporters. "Today their faith is tested in real time. Will they face evil with courage or will they face evil with fear?"

The Chicago Tribune reported the following concerning how Jackson helped:

Rev. Jesse Jackson said he met Friday at an undisclosed nearby church with some students, professors and parents who are black and Latino.

"It's not just the black students that are targeted here, but the entire campus," Jackson said. "There's nothing about this school, or any place, that makes it safe from violence. People of faith must have courage in the face of these threats."

Amen. It is too bad that college officials needed to be so cautious and remove the minority students from campus. The Chicago Sun Times had a columnist who complained about this. Fortunately, recent reports show that the students did return to campus today with 24-hour security guards being posted. The authorities do not have a suspect as of yet.

Update 4/26/2005: This appears to be a hoax.

A black college student was charged with a hate crime Tuesday for allegedly mailing racist threats to fellow minorities on campus, apparently because she was homesick and wanted to convince her parents the school was dangerous, authorities said.

The hate mail at 3,300-student Trinity International University spread fear among blacks and Hispanics on campus and prompted authorities at the Christian school to move more than 40 minorities out of their dormitories and into a hotel last week.

Alicia Hardin, 19, of Chicago was charged with disorderly conduct and a hate crime. The hate crime charge carries up to five years in prison.

She confessed to police on Monday, saying she was unhappy at Trinity and wanted to leave, said Lt. Ron Price.

This incident (hopefully just an empty threat) shows the importance for conservative Christians to take racial hatred seriously. The administration at Trinity College did even if some feel that they may have over-reacted. Some of the quotes from the students are encouraging.

 

"It was terrible," said Myleson Collins, an African-American student who was at an assembly Thursday where school officials broke the news of the letters and outlined the evacuation.

"I saw students crying. I didn't know what was going on. I was just praying," he said.
"We got segregated real quick. It felt like the 1960s with Martin Luther King. They didn't tell us where we were going."

Collins, a senior from Chicago, said the latest letter was sent to a friend of his, a black female student who told him what it said. The letter said that the writer had seen the student in church and that she was `lucky' because `I forgot to put bullets in my gun,'" Collins said.

...

"A lot of us are angry that people would [make threats]," said Kim, a white senior in her 30s who declined to give her last name. "It was really sad as we helped our friends get ready to go. That's what makes it hit home."
...

The decision to evacuate was announced around 4:30 p.m. Thursday after the third letter was discovered, Collins said.

School officials told all minority students to gather in the recreation center, where they were told what was happening, Collins said.

"It was really terrifying," he said. "I don't want to go back.

"As we left the recreation center, all the white kids were looking at you, and some of them were crying," Collins said. "It hurt so much for the first time I cried."

...

At a news conference on campus, the president of the student body said the threat "outrages us personally and as a community."

"In general, students feel very safe," said Steven Wilson, a senior from Cincinnati. "They are excited to get the other students back on campus. This is very out of character for our community."

Watson Jones, a black student who was among those evacuated Thursday night, did not attend classes Friday. He said that although his classmates were not letting the situation get them down, "we felt threatened. We were afraid."

...

Several white students at Trinity said the threats brought to life a division no one wants.

Lauren Poierier, 20, a sophomore, said it felt weird to walk around Friday on the largely empty campus.

"It makes me feel sad that the minorities have to go through this and feel unwanted," she said.

Religious Moderation Killed by Nuclear Option

The argument over judicial nominations and the filibuster is killing religious and political moderation. First, the religious right claimed that opposing the move was against people of faith.

Frist is trying to win support for a ban on the use of the filibuster, a technique to delay Senate business, to block votes on judicial nominees. He has agreed to give a videotaped speech Sunday for Justice Sunday: Stop the Filibuster Against People of Faith.

My question to Focus on the Family is how either position on procedures is against people of faith? Not to be undone, the  Democratic Senator Ken Salazar returned in kind.

Washington - Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar angrily denounced the influential Christian conservative organization Focus on the Family on Wednesday as "unchristian."

In response, the Colorado Springs group accused the lifelong Roman Catholic of taking an "anti-Catholic" stance.

The war of words was prompted by Focus on the Family's advertising campaign attacking Salazar's position on President Bush's judicial nominations. Democrat Salazar opposes Republican efforts to eliminate the filibuster - a procedural hurdle Democrats use to block votes on certain nominees.

Salazar said the ads include "flat-out lies" about his record.

"Focus on the Family has been hijacking Christianity and has become a wing of the Republican Party," Salazar said after a news conference. "They're using Christianity and religion in a very unprincipled way."

I guess you can expect political parties and lobbying groups would try to appropriate religion to defend their political positions. What I find even more disturbing is when churches get drawn into the fray. I find offensive the call for a so-called Justice Sunday appropriating the pulpits of conservative churches. It is one thing to have sermons supporting life and opposing abortion. It is quite another thing to have a procedural vote to become the warp and woof of Christianity. As far as I know, the conservative churches have not yet taken the bait. The liberal churches have.

 

The moderator of the PCUSA chastised Majority Leader, Bill Frist.

Among those scheduled to speak in the conference call is the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a top official of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., in which Dr. Frist is an active member.

"One of the hallmarks of our denomination is that we are an ecumenical church," Mr. Kirkpatrick said in an interview on Thursday. He also said, "Elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."

A spokesman for Dr. Frist said his remarks, which are not yet available, would be consistent with previous statements about fair treatment for judicial nominees. "I would hope that he would read Dr. Frist's remarks," the spokesman, Bob Stevenson, said of Mr. Kirkpatrick.

I don't get the ecumenism reference. Frist was trying to get support for his proposal amongst religious conservatives. It was Focus and other religious right  groups and not Senator Frist that were making the outrageous claims. On the other hand, I suspect Rev. Kilpatrick was trying to influence the vote the other way. Pot say hello to kettle. Note the following is part of the PCUSA's Constitution (Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XXXI):

IV. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

When the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America considered the proposed marriage amendment to the constitution last Summer. They declared it to be none of their business.

So what is causing all this shouting and name-calling on all sides? Columnist David Brooks nails it.

Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it.

Brooks doesn't go far enough. The nuclear option will not only blow up the Senate but civil discourse in general. Judicial activism not only causes rulings that I believe are wrong but also has horrific effects on both politics and religion. The nuclear option may produce more judges that are less judicially active but at a terrible cost.

Brooks concludes:

The fact is, the entire country is trapped. Harry Blackmun and his colleagues suppressed that democratic abortion debate the nation needs to have. The poisons have been building ever since. You can complain about the incivility of politics, but you can't stop the escalation of conflict in the middle. You have to kill it at the root. Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, politics will never get better.

I'm even less sanguine than Brooks. Even with overturning Roe v. Wade, neither politics or religion will get better. Until people of faith on both the left and right start showing some more good will, our country will be stuck in an intractable civil war. We need to be part of the answer rather than part of the problem.

 

Dean Lures Back Red State Voters with Wrong Bait

Howard Dean gives as a goal of trying to lure so-called "values" votes in a USA Today interview.

"We need to be a national party, we need a national message, and we need to understand why people in dire economic straits — people who certainly aren't being helped by Republican policies — why they vote for George Bush," he said. "We need to respect voters in red states who want to vote for us, but we make it hard for them by not listening to what they have to say."

So far, so good. Values voters such as myself believe that the proper role of government is to protect the weak from the strong. The Democrats could make the argument that the so-called values agenda is too narrow. I made such an argument in January. Liberal Evangelicals, Ron Sider and Jim Wallis,  make similar appeals. I find such appeals moderately compelling. So, how about Howard Dean's own appeal?

Democrats get "caught" in defending abortion, he said. "Well, there's nobody who's pro-abortion, not Democratic or Republican. What we want to debate is who gets to choose: (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay and the federal politicians? Or does a woman get to make up her own mind?"

This falls very flat. The issue is not who decides but whether the Democrats will be true to their roots of being for the powerless.  Hubert Humphrey put it this way:

The moral test of government is how that government  treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life--the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

One could effectively argue that the Republicans fail that test. Republicans pick up Evangelical voters because they don't fail as badly as the Democrats. Either party could easily improve their situation because the bar is so low. Dean's quote shows that despite his best intentions he is not really listening. Thus, he is losing what might have been an easy opportunity to pick up Evangelical voters.

Galileo, the Church, and the Bible

One of the accomplishments of Pope John Paul II was the rehabilitation of Galileo:

Oct 31, 1992 - After 359 years, Pope rehabilitates Galileo, condemned by the Church for saying earth turns around the sun.

The conflict between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church has been the classical example of the conflict between Science and Biblical Christianity. However, Galileo's approach to Scripture was much more nuanced than has been generally appreciated. Galileo had a problem with an interpretation of Scripture but not Scripture itself. As such, he is a model of finding the common ground between science and religion and not their conflict. Note the following from pages 63 and 64 of Galileo's Daughter:

The troubling news of Madama Cristina’s displeasure inspired an immediate response from Galileo. Even more than he regretted her opposition, he dreaded the drawing of battle lines between science and Scripture. Personally, he saw no conflict between the two. In the long letter he wrote back to Castelli on December 21, 1613, he probed the relationship of discovered truth in Nature to revealed truth in the Bible.

“As to the first general question of Madama Cristina, it seems to me that it was most prudently propounded to you by her, and conceded and established by you, that Holy Scripture cannot err and the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. I should only have added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways … when they would base themselves always on the literal meaning of the words. For in this wise not only many contradictions would be apparent, but even grave heresies and blasphemies, since then it would be necessary to give God hands and feet and eyes, and human and bodily emotions such as anger, regret, hatred, and sometimes forgetfulness of things past, and ignorance of the future.”

These literary devices had been inserted into the Bible for the sake of the masses, Galileo insisted, to aid their understanding of matters pertaining to their salvation. In the same way, biblical language had also simplified certain physical effects in Nature, to conform to common experience. “Holy Scripture and Nature,” Galileo declared, “are both emanations from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God’s commands.”

Whither Modernism?

Donald Kennedy in last week's editorial in the journal Science bemoaned the twilight of the Enlightenment, a.k.a. modernism.

For much of their existence over the past two centuries, Europe and the United States have been societies of questioners: nations in which skepticism has been accepted and even welcomed, and where the culture has been characterized by confidence in science and in rational methods of thought. We owe this tradition in part to the birth of the Scottish Enlightenment of the early 18th century, when the practice of executing religious heretics ended, to be gradually replaced by a developing conviction that substituted faith in experiment for reliance on inherited dogma.

That new tradition, prominently represented by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, supplied important roots for the growth of modernity, and it has served U.S. society well, as it has Europe's. The results of serious, careful experimentation and analysis became a standard for the entry of a discovery or theory into the common culture of citizens and the policies of their governments. Thus, scientific determinations of the age of Earth and the theories of gravity, biological evolution, and the conservation of matter and energy became meaningful scientific anchors of our common understanding.

Kennedy claims too much here. Darwin was not the atheist Hume was. Frank Burch Brown in The Evolution of Darwin's Religious Views (as quoted by Alistair McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism, p. 104) stated:

His beliefs concerning the possible existence of some sort of God never entirely ceased to ebb and flow, nor did his evaluation of the merit of such beliefs. At low tide, so to speak, he was essentially an undogmatic atheist; at high tide he was a tentative theist; the rest of the time he was basically agnostic -- in sympathy with theism but unable or unwilling to commit himself on such imponderable questions. Overall his thought regarding theological matters could best be described as being in what he himself termed a "muddle."

Isaac Newton was a Christian. Kennedy goes on to complain:

Finally, certain kinds of science are now proscribed on what amount to religious grounds. Stem cell research is said by its opponents to pose a "moral dilemma." Yet this well-advertised dilemma does not arise from a confrontation between science and ethical universals. Instead, the objections arise from a particular belief about what constitutes a human life: a belief held by certain religions but not by others. Some researchers, eager to resolve the problem, seek to derive stem cells by techniques that might finesse the controversy. But the claim that the stem cell "dilemma" rests on universal values is a false claim, and for society to accept it to obtain transitory political relief would bring church and state another step closer.

The present wave of evangelical Christianity, uniquely American in its level of participation, would be nothing to worry about were it a matter restricted to individual conviction and to the expressions of groups gathering to worship. It's all right that in the best-selling novels about the "rapture," the true believers ascend and the rest of us perish painfully. But U.S. society is now experiencing a convergence between religious conviction and partisan loyalty, readily detectable in the statistics of the 2004 election. Some of us who worry about the separation of church and state will accept tablets that display the Ten Commandments on state premises, because they fail to cross a threshold of urgency. But when the religious/political convergence leads to managing the nation's research agenda, its foreign assistance programs, or the high-school curriculum, that marks a really important change in our national life. Twilight for the Enlightenment? Not yet. But as its beneficiaries, we should also be its stewards.

The current political situation is the result of a huge false dichotomy. So, people are forced to chose based upon their deepest allegiance. For most people,including myself, that would be their religion. So, if Donald Kennedy wants more people to accept the theories of modern science he needs to drop -- what Steven Jay Gould said of Richard Dawkins -- his Darwinian Fundamentalism. For those of us who are interested in both science and Evangelical Christianity, the Fundamentalists are on both sides are making a mess of things.

Church of Nigeria in America Established

Regular readers of my blog will note my chronicling the deterioration of the relationship between the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) and other Anglican bodies in what is known as the Global South. Leading the charge amongst the Third-World Anglicans is Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. On April 8th Archbishop Akinola announced the establishment of the The Church of Nigeria in America.

I have also become aware of the challenging circumstances in which many of you find yourselves because of the actions of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. By their recent decisions, they have torn the fabric of our common life and have jeopardized your lives and ministries. This is a tragic reality that cannot be ignored. While it remains my prayer that ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada will repent and embrace the teaching of the Communion, their actions have placed an obligation upon me to provide for the proper and continuing pastoral and episcopal oversight for Nigerian churches in North America.

It is well known that many Nigerian Anglicans who live in the North America are no longer able to worship in an Anglican church, some have drifted to other churches, and others have even given up the faith.  I well remember one woman coming to me during one of my visits and, with tears, saying she could no longer worship in an ECUSA church and that her whole family no longer had a church home, yet they would prefer to remain faithful Anglicans. In saying this she spoke for many others.

Several of our Nigerian clergy in America have been informed they can no longer work in an Episcopal diocese or have had their funding cut.  Finally, the unilateral dismissal by the Presiding Bishop of the Chaplain we had jointly appointed to minister to Nigerian congregations illustrates the extent of the brokenness of our relationship and underlines the need to provide alternative structures for episcopal and pastoral care.

After much prayer and careful discernment with appropriate colleagues and advisors over the last two years, and in full consultation with the Nigerian congregations in America, together with the enthusiastic endorsement of the Episcopal Synod and the Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) we announce the formation of the Convocation of Anglican Nigerian Churches in America.

This Convocation will function as a ministry of the Church of Nigeria in America. Our intention is not to challenge or intervene in the churches of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada but rather to provide safe harbour for those who can no longer find their spiritual home in those churches. While it will initially operate under our Constitution and Canons, it will have its own legal and ecclesial structure and local suffragan episcopate. I will be asking the next General Synod of the Church of Nigeria, which will meet in September 2005, to make the necessary constitutional amendments.

During the intervening months, in cooperation with our friends in the Anglican Communion Network, I will be appointing episcopal visitors from among already consecrated bishops to provide pastoral and episcopal oversight for those congregations already in operation and in formation. I am excited by the possibilities before us and look forward to seeing this ministry grow.

ID Cannot Take the Heat

Proponents of a theory known as intelligent design (ID) have gotten together to form a blog called Intelligent Design the Future. This blog differs from other blogs such as this one by not having comments. One of the entries complains about confusing ID with Young Earth Creationism (YEC):

ID and the Charge of Creationism William Dembski

Despite intelligent design’s clear linkage, both methodologically and in content, with existing sciences that sift the effects of intelligence from undirected natural forces, critics of intelligent design often label it a form of creationism. Not only is this label misleading, but in academic and scientific circles it has become a maneuver to censor ideas before they can be fairly discussed.

Excuse me? If people cannot interact on your blog, the charge of censorship falls hollow at least on my ears. What about the substance of the complaint? Is it reasonable for people to conclude that ID is a form of creationism? This seems to be complaining too much because you could argue anybody who believes in a creator including theistic evolutionists are a form of creationism. In fact, many -- including myself -- who hold to that view prefer the label evolutionary creationists. What about the other end of the spectrum? What do YECs consider ID to be? Jonathan Savarti in Answers in Genesis says this:

Young-earth creationists (YECs) and the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) are natural allies in many ways, although we have major differences as well.

Dembski tries to disassociate himself from YECs but in my opinion grants too much:

Despite my disagreements with Morris and young earth creationism, I regard those disagreements as far less serious than my disagreements with the Darwinian materialists.

Dembski like Gertrude in Hamlet protesteth too much. Until he more publicly and explicitly disavows YEC it is reasonable for the general public and academia to assume they are joined at the hip. Hopefully, this new venture will do just that if he opens up comments on his blog. Welcome to the blogosphere. Ask Dan Rather what it is like. If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

Pluralism Good for Evangelical Church

The Evangelical Outpost is having a symposium asking about Judeo-Christian morality in an ethically pluralistic society. First, I'm going to narrow the topic from Judeo-Christian morality and look specifically at an Evangelical one (given that in my opinion the whole Judeo-Christian label is not helpful). Second, since the topic itself appears to beg the question I will not presuppose what form the influence Evangelical Christians ought to have on society as a whole.

The problem concerning the interaction between a so-called pluralistic society and believers is almost three thousand years old. King Ahab had adopted the henotheism of the surrounding Canaanite culture. Henotheism is the a belief that each nation had its own god. We will see more of this in a much different context later. This was (like today) a faux pluralism. You could choose amongst a number of gods, but the choice of Yahweh who was the God of all people was not available. The prophet Elijah challenged the state religion and made truth claims in what we call today the "marketplace of ideas". Even Elijah was plural in the sense was there were multiple options of which there needs to be choice. Elijah put it this way in 1 Kings 18:21:

Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."

But the people said nothing.

Elijah was definitely counter-cultural in that he was one prophet amongst hundreds on the other side. He also became depressed when his actions did not produce a society-wide change. Note how Elijah was rejected by the people making a non-choice and the king by an imposed choice. This is the essence of pluralism. God relieved that depression by showing Elijah a remnant who truly followed Him and who did made a real choice.

Presenting an option is the middle ground between the non-choice and the imposed choice of a state religion. The latter has produced profoundly negative effects in church history.

After the Thirty Years' War came the Peace of Westphalia. This established a "henotheism" in Europe by carving it up into Catholic and Lutheran sections. This was the start of the established national churches. There were exceptions by the so-called "free churches" that were not established. (Note: the Evangelical Free Church of which I am a member is a descendent of such a church.)  An attempted revolt against the established religion in the Peasants' War resulted in disaster with hundreds of thousands of deaths. In fact, death was the result of established religion irrrespective of who was in charge. For example, in England Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and Sir Thomas More were all executed for their religious views.

This produced the English Dissenters or non-conformists who dissented from the Act of Uniformity. Many of the non-conformist denominations (e.g. Baptists, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and Puritans) are the forerunners of modern Evangelicals. This particularly carried over to America. Patrick Henry's famous speech Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death was in part the result of witnessing a non-conforming pastor being flogged for lacking a license to preach. Thomas Jefferson's famous letter coining the phrase "separation of church and state" was in response to the Danbury Baptist Association who were concerned about the established church.

Here's a part of their request that spawned Jefferson's remark:

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals -- That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Scripture and history teach us that pluralism is not quite the enemy we assume them to be. It is true that it is used as an excuse like the people at Mount Carmel not to decide. But, it is preferable to the religious tyranny spawned by state-sponsored religion. There is a catch phrase used by people in progressive politics that applies here to Evangelicals as we interact with our culture:

Speak the truth to power.

We may not be in charge, nor is it likely that we will be. Yet, we must propose the truth to all of the remnant who might listen. If God be God follow Him. If Baal be God follow him.

Both/And Evangelism

Evangelicals are trying to broaden their influence beyond the normal politically conservative venues. The New York Times reported the following:

The National Association of Evangelicals, with 30 million members in 45,000 churches, opened a debate on Thursday on a document intended to expand the political platform of evangelicals beyond the fight against abortion and same-sex marriage.

The authors of the paper, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," said they reached a consensus between liberals and conservatives by adopting public policy goals, but not prescribing strategies to achieve them. At a luncheon held by the association on Thursday on Capitol Hill, however, some evangelical leaders voiced concern that the new platform could dilute the focus of the evangelical movement by taking on too many issues.

The document urges evangelicals to address issues like racial injustice, religious freedom, poverty in the United States and abroad, human rights, environmentalism and advancing peace through nonviolent conflict resolution.

So, what are evangelicals trying to accomplish? A both/and approach to evangelism and the Gospel. The extremes on both the left and the right have not always served evangelicals well. The following op-ed by David Waters sums up this thinking:

Will the pendulum ever stop in the middle? Some evangelicals are beginning to question the faithfulness of one-sided evangelism, left or right.

"The Moral Majority lacked a servant heart of Christ born out of humility and compassion for a fallen humanity," Robert Wenz, vice president of national ministries for the NAE, said at the conference.

"Instead, it was all about making America a nice place for Christians to live. This is not the kind of social involvement that we need or that evangelicals espouse."

Other evangelical leaders have been critical of the social gospel's lack of emphasis on personal sin and salvation.

"We need a full-blown biblical theology that affirms both personal and social sin, both personal conversion and structural change, both evangelism and social action, both personal and social salvation, both Jesus as moral example and Jesus as vicarious substitute, both orthodox theology and ethical obedience," Ron Sider, a professor of theology at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote in "Good News and Good Works."

The evangelical movement first began to win a huge following in the 18th Century, led by men such as John Wesley and George Whitfield. In these politically and theologically divisive times it's worth remembering why.

It was their conservative piety and their liberal humanity.

Fighting Poverty and Moral Values

The Democrats and liberal Christians have insisted that fighting poverty is a moral value. What is little known is that evangelicals agree with this assessment. In the New York Times piece, One More 'Moral Value': Fighting Poverty, Glen Stassen finds the common ground between evangelicals who are pro-life and liberals who are concerned with poverty and social justice. He also links poverty with evangelism.

Glen E. Stassen, a professor of Christian ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., said his students, who were largely conservative, agreed that poverty should be part of the moral values discussion. "A lot of Christians who are worried about abortion see poverty as a pro-life issue, because if you undermine the safety net for poor mothers, you'll increase the abortion rate and infant mortality rate," Dr. Stassen said. "We've seen that happen since welfare reform, just as the Catholic bishops predicted."

Dr. Stassen, who describes himself as "pro-life," added that many evangelicals, including his students, want to change the current moral values rhetoric because they think it drives people from, rather than to, the church. "They're both offended and worried that it will persuade people concerned about justice that they should not be Christians," he said.