Friday, June 6, 2003

Evolution and the Christian Right

The Christian Right scored a small victory recently in its ongoing battle against the teaching of biological evolution. Michael Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech, listed requirements on his faculty website for obtaining his recommendation for medical school admission. Included was the following:

"If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: 'How do you think the human species originated_' If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences."

Micah Spradling, a pre-med student who claimed that he transferred from Texas Tech to Lubbock Christian University because of Dini's requirement, raised objections and enlisted the assistance of the Liberty Legal Institute. Soon, John Ashcroft's DOJ began an investigation to determine whether Dini's policy constituted religious discrimination. Dini, a Roman Catholic, responded to the controversy by altering his criteria to require only that a student give an adequate explanation of evolution.

The DOJ has declared victory:

"The new policy rightly recognizes that students don't have to give up their religious beliefs to be good doctors or good scientists," said Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. "A biology student may need to understand the theory of evolution and be able to explain it. But a state-run university has no business telling students what they should or should not believe in. If the separation of church and state is to mean anything, it must surely mean that such matters of conscience are beyond the reach of government inquiry."

Notice that Assistant AG Boyd put the issue in terms of separation of church and state, i.e. the Establishment Clause, not Spradling's free exercise rights. Underlying this analysis is the Christian Right's assertion that evolution is not science but is itself a faith or religion. Ralph Muncaster, 700 Club guest and founder of Evidence of God Ministries, puts it this way:

"One can believe in evolution or one can believe in God's creation, but either way, belief is required."

From the CR's point of view, evolution is a competing faith that can neither be accomodated with the Christian worldview nor tolerated as a scientific fact without implications for the faith.

Florida State philosopher Michael Ruse writes in Science that Muncaster and others may have a point. He traces two traditions among evolutionists: the first directed toward professional, empirical work; the second toward popular treatments of the philosophical and moral implications of evolution:

"There is professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements. But, you are not going to find the answer to the world's mysteries or to societal problems if you open the pages of Evolution or Animal Behaviour. Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity."

Ruse traces the second tradition to pre-Darwin days but points to 19th century Englishmen Thomas Henry Huxley and Herbert Spencer as the real founders. Spencer's contribution was Social Darwinism which argued that "natural selection" should be allowed to prevail in all human relations and that a fierce competitive struggle within society would produce progress and the beneficial elimination of the "unfit.". (see this for an interesting argument from an evolutionist that evolutionary theory supports a more progressive social and economic system)

What may be most ironic here is that the social and economic agenda of the Christian Right owes a great deal to Spencer (See "Checking the Christian Right's Compass" immediately below). Rather than drawing upon the biblical tradition that emphasizes the responsibilities of political leadership, the wealthy and the entire community for the welfare of the most vulnerable, CR political leaders like Tom DeLay borrow from a "survival of the fittest" philosophy that lets the rich "keep their own money" while demanding that the children of the poor pull themselves up by the bootstraps or perish. It's too bad that this kind of "evolution" isn't recognized as anti-biblical and attacked by the same pastors who push Creationism. That would be a real victory for the Church.

Obscure Bible passage of the day: Psalm 82:1-4

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked_ (Selah) Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (NRSV)

Comment

How long can some of the pastors in Evangelical congregations ignore these calls for justice_ How long can they acquiesce in the anti-biblical social and political agenda of the self-designated leaders of the Christian Right and the politicians who enjoy their support_

Feedback Comment Home

 Thursday, June 5, 2003

Checking the Christian Right's Compass

Arianna Huffington writes today about what she considers to be a "right/wrong" issue:

"Has there ever been a clearer, more irrefutable example of our political leaders' lack of a moral compass than the clandestine, eleventh-hour elimination of a promised child tax credit for almost 12 million of the nation's poorest children_"

She chides the Christian Right "morality czars" for failing to condemn the action and concludes:

"It's time to expand the right's definition of immorality beyond sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll — to include lying, cheating and callous indifference to those in need."

Arianna's moral compass and mine are pointing in the same direction on this one. What might shock her is that the needle of the CR and many others in the Republican Party is pointing 180 degrees the other way. To those who hold what George Lakoff calls a "Strict Father" morality, it would be immoral to give a tax credit and refund to poor families.

Lakoff's Moral Politics has been discussed on this blog before. The Berkeley cognitive science prof wrote the book as a result of trying to understand the Republican successes in the '94 mid-term elections. From his observations, he developed a description of the conceptual metaphor through which many in the CR and the Republican Party understand their family relationships and the politics of their communities and nation. He named this metaphor "Strict Father" because of its emphasis on authority, discipline, reward and punishment.

The "Strict Father" system includes its own Moral Order that ranks those who inhabit the universe according to their perceived moral value. God is at the top. People rank above nature. Adults are higher than children. Men have moral authority over women. Finally, the rich have moral authority over the poor:

"Start with the American Dream, the stereotypic assumption that America is truly a land of opportunity where anyone with self-discipline and talent can, through hard work, climb the ladder of success. It follows that anyone who has been in the country long enough and is not successful has either not worked hard enough or is not talented enough. If he has not worked hard enough, he is slothful and hence morally weak. If he is not talented enough, then he ranks lower than others in the natural order and hence lower in the moral order. The rich (who are disciplined and talented enough and who have worked hard enough to become rich) deserve their wealth and the poor (either through lack of industry or talent) deserve their poverty. The rich are thus not just more powerful than the poor, they also have moral authority over the poor and with it the moral responsibility to tell the poor how to live: build self-discipline, work hard, climb the economic, ladder, and so become self-reliant."

From this mindset, it appears that Tom DeLay is doing those poor families a great favor by denying them tax credits and rebates. Giving them money they haven't "earned" would enforce their "moral weakness" and undermine the self-discipline they need to become self-reliant.

One can almost feel Arianna's distaste for the wheeling, dealing corporate types who have benefited from Bush's tax politicies, but her dislike is not shared by those with a Strict Father worldview. These men--and we are talking about men, white men, here--are the most moral people in the culture. They are model citizens:

"In the conservative moral worldview, the model citizens are those who best fit all the conservative categories for moral action. They are those (1) who have conservative values and act to support them; (2) who are self-discplined and self-reliant; (3) who uphold the morality of reward and punishment; (4) who work to protect moral citizens; and (5) who act in support of the moral order. Those who best fit all these cateories are successful, wealthy, law-abiding conservative businessmen who support a strong military and a strict criminal justiec system, who are against government regulation, and who are against affirmative action. They are the model citizens. They are the people whom all Americans should emulate and from whom we have nothing to fear. They deserve to be rewarded and respected. These model citizens fit an elaborate mythology. They have succeeded through hard work, have earned whatever they have through their own self-discipline, and deserve to keep what they have earned. Through their success and wealth they create jobs, which they 'give' to other citizens. Simply by investing their money to maximize their earnings, they become philanthropists who 'give' jobs to others and thereby 'create wealth' for others. Part of the myth is that these model citizens have been given nothing by the government and have made it on their own."

While the Strict Fatherites' Moral Order puts God on top, they don't pay much heed to the words of God's biblical prophets. Amos paints an unflattering portrait of the "model citizens" of the northern kingdom of Israel in his day:

"Therefore because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins— you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and push aside the needy in the gate. Therefore the prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time." (NRSV)

The moral worldview of Isaiah seems to have more in common with Arianna than with the Strict Fatherites:

"How the faithful city has become a whore! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her— but now murderers! Your silver has become dross, your wine is mixed with water. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the orphan, and the widow's cause does not come before them." (NRSV)

Jesus was very much in the prophetic tradition of Amos and Isaiah. He considered the rich as anything but morally superior. He even challenges his own disciples' conception that the wealthy were favored by God with this striking simile:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (NRSV)

The Christian Right needs to check their moral compass against what they claim to hold as authoritative: the Bible.

Obscure Bible verses of the day: James 5:1-6

Come now, you rich people, weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you. Your riches have rotted, and your clothes are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you, and it will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous one, who does not resist you." (NRSV)

Comment

The early church did not fawn over the rich and powerful like the Christian Right.

Feedback Comment Home

Wednesday, June 4, 2003

The Politics of Bible Translation

Anyone who has sat down and compared two or more versions of the Bible in some detail knows that translating is as much art as science. The texts being translated are ancient and some of the words and grammar are obscure to us who are removed by so many centuries. There is even uncertainty about the texts themselves at a number of critical points since we have no original manuscripts from the biblical writers themselves--only copies removed by one or more centuries from the original text.

Then there is the matter of theology. Luther inserted the word "alone" into his translation of Romans 3:28 to underscore his theological argument that Christians are saved by faith alone and not works. The NIV translates the Hebrew almah in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin" in support of the creedal virgin birth of Christ. The RSV translates the same word as "young woman" because the Hebrew text does not use the typical technical term for virgin: betulah. The hermeneutics (approach to interpretation) and theology of the best translator enters into the process even if more or less subconsciously.

We thank the Rev. Al Sharpton for our name. Confronted by an anti-abortion protester at NARAL's January rally to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Rev. Sharpton responded, "Young lady, it is time for the Christian right to meet the right Christians." Our site is not otherwise connected with the Sharpton campaign and he is not responsible for its content nor we for his campaign. We do appreciate his stating so succinctly what we have been feeling for some time and wish him well.

"The Right Christians" was founded by the Rev. Allen H. Brill and is currently under his direction.

Home

Participate

You are invited to contribute to "The Right Christians" by submitting letters, articles or even a blog on a specific topic. Use the Volunteer Form to get started.

We have some ongoing opportunities to participate:

We would especially like to add the following:

Diverse Sources:

Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups; pastors or former pastors of Evangelical or neo-Pentecostal congregations; academics in the areas of church history or systematics

Experts in the following areas:

contemporary Christian music; the business interests of the Christian Right; "Christian" publishing

Home