On Friday night, Tara and I saw Prime Stage Theater’s stage production of “Inherit the Wind.” It was a great way to spend an evening. The play was well-directed and the actors were obviously thoroughly invested in their roles. Best of all, two of my dear friends had key roles in the play. They were exceptionally good, and I was enormously proud of them.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the production, “Inherit the Wind” (both the play and the film of the same name) is a fictionalized version of an important historical event—specifically, the 1925 Scopes Trial. The defendant in the trial was a young teacher by the name of John Scopes who had been accused of teaching Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in spite of a Tennessee law prohibiting such teaching. Scopes’ attorney was none other than Clarence Darrow, a nationally-known trial lawyer who had a passion for challenging the constitutionality of the law that Scopes had been accused of breaking. The prosecutor in the trial was William Jennings Bryan, a famous orator and politician who, though unsuccessful in his three attempts to become President, had nevertheless become a popular public figure as a result of his religious convictions and his support of the ban on the teaching of evolution.
Obviously, the Scopes Trial functioned as a microcosm of a much larger cultural scenario. Darrow and Bryan became the voices of a multi-dimensional tension that found expression in a variety of contexts. It was the tension between scientific theory and the convictions of faith; between biblical literalism and biblical interpretation; between conformity to the status quo and freedom of intellectual exploration. Some have suggested that, in terms of its cultural impact, the Scopes Trial was nothing less than the most public doorway through which America entered into the rudimentary phases of postmodernity and post-Christendom.
Lest any of us believe the issues of the Scopes Trial are no longer significant, I share with you these comments, made recently by Sam Harris (a young philosopher, author, and current doctoral student in neuroscience):
It’s possible that people will come to their senses and realize that organizing humanity around competing religious certainties–beliefs about which books were dictated by the creator of the universe or by what name God wants to be called–is suicidal…The fact is that one’s level of conviction or certainty isn’t the final arbiter of whether or not something is true. The truth of a statement isn’t something you feel in your brain. It’s something out in the world, which you test with science and reason…Forty years from now, we’ll realize that taking religion seriously was like taking astrology seriously.
(Sam Harris in an interview with Robert Boynton. The interview appears in the November 15th issue of “Rolling Stone.”)
The question for people of faith, of course, is this: How can a Christ-follower respond to such sentiments in a way that honors the integrity of the Gospel while at the same time avoiding a tone of smug and desperate defensiveness. (I am convinced that such emotional defensiveness will not be any more effective in 2007 than it was during the Scopes Trial.) I do not have any easy answers or convenient solutions. But here are some thoughts that are hopefully somewhere close to the heart of the issue:
1. It is incumbent upon the Church to resist the temptation to demonize science and scientific theory. Doing so creates an environment of avoidance and paranoia that makes the church appear intellectually deficient and culturally detached.
2. Scientific exploration and study (even the study of evolutionary theory) is beneficial for Christ-followers, as long as they keep in mind that science and faith are not enemies, but rather responses to an entirely different set of inquiries. Science responds to the questions that live in the realm of “how” and “when.” Faith, on the other hand, addresses the inquiries that emerge from the realm of “who” and “why.” These realms are not at all mutually exclusive.
3. “Truth” is not always synonymous with “historical fact.” This reality is often forgotten in our biblical interpretation, particularly when it comes to making sense of the more poetic biblical narratives that were never intended to answer all of the scientific questions that post-enlightenment disciples are inclined to ask. It is possible, in other words, for Genesis 1 and 2 to be the inspired and authoritative Word of God, even if those chapters are not looked upon as being the same kind of detailed historical record that the Gospels provide. Perhaps the world really was created in six literal days. But, even if it were not, the Holy Truth that the Genesis account proclaims is in no way diminished. If we insist on a literalistic interpretation of Scripture at every point, we force people into an “either/or” proposition that, quite frankly, is neither tenable nor reasonable.
4. Although I support the intent of its formulators, I fear that much of the “Intelligent Design” strategy is a misplaced effort to force a theological worldview into scientific discourse and a last-ditch effort to get the public school system to do the church’s job. If it is indeed “public” education, then probably the most we can insist upon in our science classes is a neutral environment in which speculation about the primary Origin is left to philosophy and religion classes.
5. It must be remembered that Jesus Christ, the living Word, is our foundational hermeneutic in the interpretation of Scripture. If Christ is the lens through which we read Scripture, all of our debates about the creation narratives are kept in their proper perspective. When we are in relationship with the One through whom all creation happened and toward whom all creation is moving, it helps us to resist the temptation to place the focus on the wrong things.
Interestingly, the phrase “inherit the wind” comes from Proverbs 11:29: “He who troubles his own house will inherit wind.” The question for all of us, I suppose, is this: In an age in which science and faith are necessary neighbors, are we making certain that that we are troubling the right house and inheriting the right wind?
Eric,
I love your statement that, “If Christ is the lens through which we read Scripture, all of our debates about the creation narratives are kept in their proper perspective.”
As people of faith Jesus is a certainty in our hearts that gives us the power to recognize truth from that which is false.
It’s hard for someone who does not have a sense of Christ in their hearts to
understand, but nevertheless those who answer His knock at the door and truly seek, will over time (I believe) get to know Him as an abiding presence within.
This intimate relationship makes it easier to have faith in Christianity. Perhaps, this is the Holy Spirit at work but personally I see the face of Christ.
Jesus looks at a thing and all uncertainty falls away in the wake of His truth. His wind if you will, a wind of love which resonates and echoes throughout the ages compelling us to be people of compassion and forgivness.
In the debate of science verses religion we must remember that Jesus always gave us an example of being inclusive and not exclusive of others. So, we should not be judgemental. I believe that absolute scientific proven truth about questions of origin will never be attainable. There will always be questions. As people of faith we believe that our questions are answered by the supernatural presence of Jesus in our minds and in our hearts.
For me, my hope rests in Inheriting the Wind of our precious Savior. His face, His love which passeth all understanding.
Eric -
Great post! I love “Inherit the Wind.” I agree with you that there is no inherent opposition between faith and science. I’m also strongly critical of the church for its failure to teach Bible and doctrine to young people, and then complain that the public schools are not teaching creationism (or at least “intelligent design).
I would only want to add that in repenting of our own arrogance on this issue, Christians should also be willing to prophetically denounce the arrogance of science as well. I think that much of the horrors of the past century are basically the logical conclusions of Science attempting to give its own answers to the questions of “Who” and “Why” — rather than humbly acknowledging its own limitations and allowing Faith its proper domain. As long as science sticks with the “How,” “What,” and “When,” it’s fine. But when it ignores the teachings of faith–on creation, morality, human dignity–in the APPLICATION of its findings, I believe it becomes demonic, and our recent history is certainly a dismal proof of that.
Cheers………………
Jeff