Tag Archives: Christianity and Politics

The Litmus Test for Public Office


EVOLUTION

The litmus test for public office should include one simple concept, namely the belief in evolution.  We live in an age where the denial of scientific fact is rampant.  We live in an age when Republicans do not seem to believe in science at all.  They do not believe in evolution, global warming, stem cell research, or birth control.  The Bush 43 White House was known for its bad science.  It took climate studies and had them “spun” by oil industry lobbyists.  It opposed stem cell research and the distribution of condoms in Africa to quell the AIDS epidemic.

It does not matter if a candidate is running for a local school board or for President of the United States.  We cannot afford to have ignorant, backward people in either position.  Evolution is a matter of scientific fact.  It cannot be voted on in a school board meeting or a state legislature.  Just as we do not vote as to whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa, evolution is not dependent upon public opinion or any sort of vote.

Science is radically skeptical and self-correcting.  If a scientist proposes a false hypothesis, other scientists will review it and either support it, refute it, or offer an alternative explanation.  The test of scientific understanding is in the laboratory and not in the political arena.

Evolution is as real as gravity.  It has survived 150 years of scientific scrutiny.  Everything in the universe evolves.  Stars, planets and even galaxies are born, evolve, and eventually die.  Even the very atoms of our bodies were created in super nova explosions of dying stars. Planets are created and some become habitable for life.  Live evolves from the most simple single cell live forms into greater and greater complexity as time goes on.  From our one known example it appears to take about 4.5 billion years for a planet to spawn a civilization.

Saying that we do not fully understand evolution is no excuse to reject it, because the same thing could be said about gravity.  Even after Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, there is still much about gravity that we do not understand.  And yet we know that it is real.

The rejection of evolution is possible only through the most willful ignorance.  That is not a quality that we need in our elected leaders.  If a candidate is ignorant about evolution, then we could rightfully expect that they are ignorant about a host of other subjects as well, from history to economics to human behavior.

The rejection of evolution is rooted in the preference for ancient religious mythology over scientific fact.  I say that not as some sort of atheist or radical secularist, but as a confessing Christian and a pastor.

The biblical world view was of a flat surface covered by a dome, like a dinner plate covered by a large, inverted salad bowl.  The dome was called the “firmament.” Those who reject evolution on religious grounds ought logically to affirm the “flat earth” theory deny that the earth is round.

Galileo proclaimed that the earth revolved around the sun.  His views were attacked by the church as “unchristian” for the next 350 years.  We can be pretty sure that Galileo was right.  We use Galileo’s architecture of the solar system to send space probes to Jupiter, Saturn and beyond.

Stem cell research promises an extraordinary advance in human health and quality of life.  It ought not to be stymied by narrow-minded religious bigotry.  Imagine a time when the paralyzed walk again through spinal regeneration and the blind see through newly regrown eyes and optic nerves.  Diseased hearts, kidneys and livers will be regenerated by stem cell injections.

We are currently discovering that the LGBT community is a threat to the established order.  Nor are they a singularly heinous class of sinners as many so-called Christians would have us believe.  Rather, they are simply diverse groups of people wanting to live out their lives according to their created sexuality.  Gay bashing is neither a Christian virtue nor a family value.  It is not an expression of religious devotion but rather a persecution of those who are different.

Global warming is real.  It is affirmed by over 95% of scientists working on climate issues.  The ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland and the Tibetan plateau is melting at an ever-increasing rate. The long-sought Northwest Passage is now open for navigation. I expect that within my life time it will be possible to take a cruise ship to the North Pole.

We are in the midst of the worst extinction event in 65 million years.  Global weather patterns are getting progressively more disturbed and destructive.  We are seeing catastrophic hurricanes, floods, droughts and fires on a planetary scale.  How long before our food supply dwindles or fresh water becomes more valuable than oil?

We need leadership that has a 21st Century worldview.  We need leadership that is well-educated and enlightened, and at home in the modern world. We need leadership that is fluent in science and can understand and respect what science is telling us.  We need leadership that is grounded in scientific fact, knowledge, logic and critical thinking.

 

Rachel Held Evans — Shedding light on “Biblical” Values


Rachel Held Evans

Rachel Held Evans (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


I wanted to share with you a statement by the blogger Rachel Held Evans.  I love her way of reading scripture.  Her blog can be found at www.rachelheldevans.com and is well worth checking out.

As an evangelical Christian, Rachel has shown light on some of the more ridiculous claims of fundamentalism.  Particularly, she has shown very clearly how the fundamentalists have tried to usurp the Christian values discussion, and how they are trying to control our courts and legislatures in order to make their distorted values the law of the land.

 
10:00 PM ET

My Take: The danger of calling behavior ‘biblical’

Editor’s Note: Rachel Held Evans is a popular blogger from Dayton, Tennessee, and author of “A Year of Biblical Womanhood.”

By Rachel Held Evans, Special to CNN

On “The Daily Show” recently, Jon Stewart grilled Mike Huckabee about a TV ad in which Huckabee urged voters to support “biblical values” at the voting box.

When Huckabee said that he supported the “biblical model of marriage,” Stewart shot back that “the biblical model of marriage is polygamy.”

And there’s a big problem, Stewart went on, with reducing “biblical values” to one or two social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, while ignoring issues such as poverty and immigration reform.

It may come as some surprise that as an evangelical Christian, I cheered Stewart on from my living room couch.

As someone who loves the Bible and believes it to be the inspired word of God, I hate seeing it reduced to an adjective like Huckabee did. I hate seeing my sacred text flattened out, edited down and used as a prop to support a select few political positions and platforms.

And yet evangelicals have grown so accustomed to talking about the Bible this way that we hardly realize we’re doing it anymore. We talk about “biblical families,” “biblical marriage,” “biblical economics,” “biblical politics,” “biblical values,” “biblical stewardship,” “biblical voting,” “biblical manhood,” “biblical womanhood,” even “biblical dating” to create the impression that the Bible has just one thing to say on each of these topics – that it offers a single prescriptive formula for how people of faith ought to respond to them.

But the Bible is not a position paper. The Bible is an ancient collection of letters, laws, poetry, proverbs, histories, prophecies, philosophy and stories spanning multiple genres and assembled over thousands of years in cultures very different from our own.

When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word, we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that don’t quite fit our preferences and presuppositions. In an attempt to simplify, we force the Bible’s cacophony of voices into a single tone and turn a complicated, beautiful, and diverse holy text into a list of bullet points we can put in a manifesto or creed. More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.

Nowhere is this more evident than in conversations surrounding “biblical womanhood.”

Growing up in the Bible Belt, I received a lot of mixed messages about the appropriate roles of women in the home, the church and society, each punctuated with the claim that this or that lifestyle represented true “biblical womanhood.”

In my faith community, popular women pastors such as Joyce Meyer were considered unbiblical for preaching from the pulpit in violation of the apostle Paul’s restriction in 1 Timothy 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent”), while Amish women were considered legalistic for covering their heads in compliance with his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:5 (“Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head”).

Pastors told wives to submit to their husbands as the apostle Peter instructed in 1 Peter 3:1, but rarely told them to avoid wearing nice jewelry as the apostle instructs them just one sentence later in 1 Peter 3:3. Despite the fact that being single was praised by both Jesus and Paul, I learned early on that marriage and motherhood were my highest callings, and that Proverbs 31 required I keep a home as tidy as June Cleaver’s.

This didn’t really trouble me until adulthood, when I found myself in a childless egalitarian marriage with a blossoming career and an interest in church leadership and biblical studies. As I wrestled with what it meant to be a woman of faith, I realized that, despite insistent claims that we don’t “pick and choose” from the Bible, any claim to a “biblical” lifestyle requires some serious selectivity.

After all, technically speaking, it is “biblical” for a woman to be sold by her father to pay off debt, “biblical” for a woman to be required to marry her rapist, “biblical” for her to be one of many wives.

So why are some Bible passages lifted out and declared “biblical,” while others are explained away or simply ignored? Does the Bible really present a single prescriptive lifestyle for all women?

These were the questions that inspired me to take a page from A.J. Jacobs, author of “The Year of Living Biblically”, and try true biblical womanhood on for size—literally, no “picking and choosing.”

This meant, among other things, growing out my hair, making my own clothes, covering my head whenever I prayed, abstaining from gossip, remaining silent in church (unless I was “prophesying,” of course), calling my husband “master,” even camping out in my front yard during my period to observe the Levitical purity laws that rendered me unclean.

During my yearlong experiment, I interviewed a variety of women practicing biblical womanhood in different ways — an Orthodox Jew, an Amish housewife, even a polygamist family – and I combed through every commentary I could find, reexamining the stories of biblical women such as Deborah, Ruth, Hagar, Tamar, Mary Magdalene, Priscilla and Junia.

My goal was to playfully challenge this idea that the Bible prescribes a single lifestyle for how to be a woman of faith, and in so doing, playfully challenge our overuse of the term “biblical.” I did this not out of disdain for Scripture, but out of love for it, out of respect for the fact that interpreting and applying the Bible is a messy, imperfect and – at times – frustrating process that requires humility and grace as we wrestle the text together.

The fact of the matter is, we all pick and choose. We’re all selective in our interpretation and application of the biblical text. The better question to ask one another is why we pick and choose the way that we do, why we emphasis some passages and not others. This, I believe, will elevate the conversation so that we’re using the Bible, not as a blunt weapon, but as a starting point for dialogue.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rachel Held Evans.