Scientism and Fundamentalism: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Over the last couple of weeks I came across two separate reports that I found almost equally disturbing. Interestingly enough, one was from a national science conference event and the other from a Christian radio program. What I found peculiar about these two incidents is that they shared a strikingly similar way of expressing their beliefs. Both groups expressed their "convictions" by the ridiculing and belittling of what they perceived as their opponents.

I came across the comments shared at the science convention first so let me begin there. The article I read quoted several scientists who openly mocked the idea of God. One gathered the distinct impression that many scientists from this conference believed that the idea of God was nothing much more than a neanderthalic concept that at best served to bring comfort to the naïve, and at worst, willfully kept the world in some sort of prolonged dark age.

The standard disclaimer expressing that all science can do is answer scientific questions was noticeably absent. There was this underlying assumption that God did not exist. Of course this was a very unscientific assumption to make since the existence of God can neither be proved or disproved by the dictates of scientific inquiry.

The arrogance openly expressed by this group of scientists was alarming. I will say that I did hear one voice of dissent quoted. This one scientist expressed concern that the manner in which many of his colleagues were "demonizing" people of religious faith reminded him of the very tactics he saw employed by what he termed "the other side". He was of course speaking of Christian fundamentalists.

Which brings me to the second instance I referred to earlier. Just a few days ago I was feeling daring enough to flip through to the Christian radio station while returning home in my car. Believe me, this is a rare event. Anyway, while doing so I came across a program that was in the midst of a discussion about the global warming debate. The stuff I heard was pretty sickening and, as I said earlier, reminded me of the very spirit I was exhibited by the atheist scientists from a week earlier.

First of all, these two guys made the rather preposterous leap as to assume that the affects of global warming had almost nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels, and everything to do with the ongoing work of the fall. "Creation was groaning" just as the Bible told us it would- so said these two. They openly mocked the idea that human behavior had anything of real consequence to do with the warming of the planet. They followed this up by ridiculing "liberals" such as Al Gore for scaring people while driving around in limousines.

It's one thing to have a belief, even a conviction. There's nothing wrong with that. It is another thing entirely to employ tactics that see you mock, belittle and stereotype anyone who disagrees with you. The two groups of individuals involved in the people-bashing I describe above both displayed a no-holds barred attitude when it came to the open mocking of those who didn't share their conviction. In my mind both groups equally expressed the tell-tale grain of human depravity. I think both were equally uncharitable and undignified in their characterization of their ideological opponents.

Of course if I had to pick between the two, I'd say shame times two on the Christian radio program hosts. After all, they claim to raise high the banner of Jesus. If they insist on calling people who differ ideologically, enemies- so be it. But then they need to take seriously Jesus' command to bless their enemies. I don't know about you, but if I were Al Gore I don't think I'd feel anything of the sort if I were privy to what was said on this particular radio program.





Republicans, Democrats and Human Nature

For those of us involved in the "emerging conversation", the issue of the Religious Right (read: much of the Republican Party- or vice versa) having commandeered Christianity and God for its own political well-being has been long discussed and long lamented. However, with change in the air following shifts in the D.C. political landscape, other issues will undoubtedly emerge.

Now it's the Democratic Party, so long a voice merely of "no that's wrong" and "no that's wrong because that's not politically correct" will come under the microscope after having to table some real proposals on public policy. Having had the fire prod in their hands for so long, it may take some getting used to having their own feet put to the fire.

I find it interesting that commentators right, left and center, have suggested that the shift in political landscape that we're seeing in America is merely a result of the country's period shifts from Left to Right. This seems to me to be a short-sighted diagnosis. I think the real force behind political shifts in this country has everything to do with power and its ability to corrupt.

It's not that the country suddenly got more democratic in the latter half of 2006. It's that the country just grew tired of seeing the abuse that came with one political party having all the power for too long. Of course the same happened after Bill Clinton's first term. It is neither a Republican nor Democratic problem. It is a human one.





Fear the Statistics: Making Sense of the 4%

I recently came across an article that mentioned a "study" that has been touted by some Evangelicals as an alarm bell for youth ministry. The "study" supposedly suggests that only 4% of youth currently involved with Evangelical, "bible-believing" churches will stick to the system in their adulthood.

The article I was reading went on to say that many kids are just finding it too difficult to resist the pervasive seduction of our culture. For instance, an example was made of MTV's casual "hooking-up" mentality (this refers to having casual sexual relations with the opposite sex). This article seemed to imply that the cultural influences of today are simply proving overwhelming for many Christian youth.

I have several issues with this article and the study it supposedly makes reference to. For one- as a few have noted already, this 4% figure was defined by a very narrow band of definition. In other words, this study's definition of what a "bible-believing Christian" is was so narrow that it leaves out of the loop many Christians who seem unresolved on a few "hot-button" issues.

This brings to mind the famous statement of Mark Twain, who said: "there are lies, damn lies and quoting statistics." In other words, when you frame things in certain ways, you can almost demonstrate anything to be true. It would have been more helpful for this "study" to point out that the declining numbers behind this particular, narrow description has as much to do with "postmodern graying" as it had to do with kids giving up their faith.

Put another way, it's not surprising to me that Gen X and Y youth (or whatever tag you prefer to apply) define things a little more loosely than their parents. But this has to do with a shifting meta-narrative in society. It is not simply about kids continuing to believe- or not.

The second problem with Evangelical leaders making use of this "study" in 2006 is that the "research" was supposedly done 10 years ago. And when pressed, certain leaders admitted that there really had been no follow-up to demonstrate whether or not any of what the study was purporting was actually proving to be true. Not to mention the fact that the climate in 2006 might be quite different than 1996. Even if some of this was true 10 years ago, that is not to say it is still true today.

Lastly, I would also say that, while this article I read made note of the pervasive influence of secular "youth culture", I have read evidence recently that really calls into questions some of those assumptions. For instance, despite MTV's irresponsible "teaching" on sex, a global study I recently came across seems to suggest that kids are not actually having sex earlier than they did ten years ago; nor are they having sex with more partners than they used to. Which goes to show that the MTV phenomenon is more about sensationalization than anything else. Youth watch it for shock value (unfortunately) but not necessarily as a compass for normal living.

A caveat here: I am not saying that we should not be concerned about these influences; far from it. However, we need to be intellectually honest about the real situation. Fear-mongering is never a helpful tactic.

Lastly, let me make the point that, in light of George Barna's research about the exodus of Christians from organized denominational life, we really need to clarify whether the issue is more about a shifting understanding of church, rather than a shifting belief in God. According to Barna vast numbers of people now question the significance of involvement with a local church body. But, again, according to Barna many of these people are not the nominal Christians, but actually the ones that are the most devout; the most committed. And this "study" that quoted the 4% statistic didn't even begin to account for this factor.

All this goes to show that the issue may not be so much about the intellectual dishonesty as much as it is about not seeing the forest for the trees. Coining things simply in terms of "belief verses unbelief" is really not that helpful in this day and age. It seems to me that if these studies are going to be of much use, we need a nuanced understanding of the effects of the changing meta-narrative on our underlying categories of belief. Anything less merely produces results that tell us that "oh my! 2006 is not the same year as 1956!" And of course, this should not come as a surprise to anyone.





Dallas Willard's Campaign for the Church

Recently I've been perusing through the writings of Dallas Willard again. Dallas Willard, a Philosophy teacher at USC, is passionate about empowering Christians to actually become like Jesus. Willard is one of those authors, like a C.S. Lewis for instance, who I find fruitful to return to time and again. Each time I do I am newly, and often more deeply, blessed with their unique and inspired perspective.

It has been said many times that truth, when you hear it, tends to feel like something you're being reminded of more so than something you're being told of for the first time. My experience of Dallas Willard is much like that. I read something he's written and its almost as if I say to myself, "Yes, of course- that is the way it is."

Of course, what makes the "pills" that Dallas is dropping even easier to swallow is the character reputation that Willard carries with him. It is said that Willard, when asked to speak at a conference of some sort, always prays that others speaking that day will be more successful than him. In other words, not only does he shun his own "glory", he actually seeks to sabotage it.

Willard's idea of offering classes in local churches teaching How to Turn the Other Cheek is still, I think, one of the most revolutionary, yet "common-sensical" ideas to come out of contemporary Evangelicalism. It is too bad that this idea hasn't actually caught on more. I think that's largely because there is still a disconnect in Church culture between some of the things Jesus instructed us to do, and our practical belief as to the possibility of that even being possible. But what does that say about who we believe ourselves to be? And who we believe Jesus to be?

Willard believes strongly that in order to "put on the character of Christ" we must adopt disciplinary practices, empowered by the Spirit of God and the teaching model of Jesus, to actually become like Jesus. The process is a slow, incremental one. It is achievable- but only if we actually endeavor to get there; both through our own intention and the leading and empowerment of the Spirit of God.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone, or some group, were to get behind the idea of offering these How to Turn the Other Cheek classes, the same way that a charismatic figure like Rick Warren got behind the 40 Days of Purpose program that spread like wildfire through North American churches over the last few years? While somewhat controversial, the 40 Days of Purpose program is designed to inspire the purposeful, holy desires of Christians.

The How To Turn the Other Cheek program would be specifically geared towards being a blessing to our neighbors. Of course we also are blessed, both spiritually and physiologically, when we can control our tempers. It really is a win-win, as Willard also points out, for everyone involved. It's an open question- which program, Warren's or Willard's, would be more impacting on the culture? Perhaps that is a false dichotomy. Clearly, we need both.




Current from: July-October 2006 - May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005