BLUE TWILIGHT: NATURE,
CREATIONISM AND AMERICAN RELIGION. By Langdon Gilkey. Minneapolis: Augsberg Fortress Press, 2001. Pp. xii + 180. Paper. Revised and expanded, originally published
in Pneuma: Journal of the Society for Pentecostal
Studies 25/1 (2003), pp. 134-38.
Forces
of light and dark battle within American religion and culture in this exposé of
“Young Earthism” by liberal theologian and public
courtroom veteran Landon Gilkey. Aside from perverting problem solving skills
among the nation’s youth, this alarming sectarian movement is, according to Gilkey, much more than a bizarre irritation; rather, it is
a veritable national threat with the potential to weaken scientific education
and tremendously wound industrial and military America.
Gilkey does not directly employ Paul’s connected ideas on
nature in Rom 1:20; 8:18-23, and Paul’s concept of death and sin (at Rom 5:12)
is taken too lightly in the potential context of the observable pre-Adamic
creational timeline, but, to his credit, Gilkey
recognizes blatant pseudoscience when he sees it. When “Young Earthism”
devotees (detailed by Ronald L. Numbers, The
Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism [Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1993), under their confrontational mantra of “True Science
and Education,” attack naturalistic science as supposedly atheistic and ungodly
and seek to establish a theocracy instead of a democracy wherein freedom of
religion can flourish, Gilkey is unabashed to
describe this sectarian dogma for what it really is: a perversion of the Gospel
and a recipe for national self-destruction.
Gilkey calls attention to the paradox of how a
“Young Earthism” understanding of nature (wherein the
entire cosmos of one hundred billion galaxies develops in only a few thousand
human years, wherein humankind fraternize with dinosaurs, and where unobserved
short-term macroevolution supposedly occurs after a worldwide flood) can
flourish within a culture which is based throughout on scientific
technology.
If we are to be
spared this fanatical expression of Christianity from the Evangelical Right
with its denial of the experimental findings of modern science in the name of
supposedly religious truths, then we must be courageous for the good of the
country. We are a nation in peril, given
that absolutist biblical “interpretation” fanatically wedded to absolutist
politics and the replacement of experimentally based scientific methodology by
philosophical speculation and by religious doctrine in the teaching of the
natural sciences, social science, and history is the declared theocratic
intention of “Young Earthism.”
Gilkey calls upon some reflections by Niebuhr
on patriotism and Tillich on concern for truth to
bolster his argument, countering Barth’s view of
natural theology that nature provided little of theological interest with the
point that our experience with nature (experimental scientific findings)
reveals the immense and unlimited power of God, as well as His wisdom and
glory. With Schleiermacher,
Gilkey believes that theology has limitations set by
experience with God’s spiritual presence and activity and should not go too far
beyond its area of expertise, particularly in a dogmatic manner.
In the area of
evaluating Christian experience in this current ‘Era of the Glimpse of God’
ushered in by the discovery of a cosmic beginning in 1963, all Christian people
should be able to recognize an argument from the reasoned contemplation of
experience as evidential (cf. my “The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Review
Article,” Trinity Journal 23 [2002],
pp. 81-101 [95-97]). Unfortunately,
Christian youth who are put under the yoke of the pseudoscientific claims of
“Young Earthism” may not be able to properly
evaluate, appreciate, and experience for themselves the new major scientific
discoveries that are supportive of the biblical testimony. Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that all
freethinking Christian people will now, unless pedagogically crippled by such
an indoctrinating yoke, be able to comprehend something of the eternal power
and divinity of God from their experiential contemplation of nature. Since in the new ‘Era of the Glimpse of God’
this opportunity is being afforded to humankind more than ever before by
striking new discoveries that are harmonious with reasonable interpretation of
Scripture, it is of some urgency that responsible Christian leadership
critically assess the hermeneutical credibility of “Young Earthism”
interpretive claims, which appear to many as deeply unbiblical.
Also, it is
certainly not uninteresting that the dogmatic excision and erasure of selected
observable events from physical reality in the supposedly ‘biblical’ version of
Christianity espoused by “Young Earthism” has
parallel roots in the same closed-minded dispensational mindset that, as a
matter of ‘fundamentals,’ historically disconnected the ongoing ministry of the
heavenly Jesus and the Holy Spirit from the teaching of the earthly Jesus in
New Testament texts via the imposition of cessationism. The dogmatic excision and selected erasure of
unwanted spiritual enablements, supposedly confined
to an “apostolic age,” stemmed from the same paleoreformed
mindset (detailed by Jon Ruthven, On the
Cessation of the Charismata: The Protestant Polemic on
Postbiblical Miracles [JPTSup
3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993]). This mindset adopted rationalistic claims of
the Reformers that were made for contemporary political reasons, claims that
were never defended by the Reformers as being “biblical,” thus forging a cessationistic method of interpretation. Philosophical speculation trumped exegesis
when necessary, texts so twisted were incorporated into a rational rock, and
Christian experience became relegated to suspicion. Also, the subsequent quick and dogmatic
defense of the ensuing positions in Protestant cessationism
and again now in the physical cessationism of “Young Earthism,” shallow interpretive positions highly touted as
being ‘fundamental’ and ‘biblical,’ is indeed remarkably similar in both
instances.
Historically too,
evangelistic Christians in the Pentecostal Reformation and in the Charismatic Renewal,
who now constitute the largest sector of world Christendom aside from Roman
Catholicism and who disagreed with the aforementioned paleocalvinistic
cessationism, may now recall how they were formerly
dubbed as “the last vomit of Satan.” So
there is no doubt great hope for those embattled pioneers, who currently
challenge the physical cessationism propagated by the
same paleoreformed mindset, although these pioneers
are also subjected to, for now, the equally uncharitable sobriquet of
“compromiser.”
Surely attention
should be dutifully paid to attempting to correct “Young Earthism”
interpretations and embellishments that are unleashed upon an unsuspecting
public and supposedly support physical erasures both from cosmic and from earth
history. Such improbable interpretations
and/or reinterpretations need to be questioned.
In this battle for the minds of Christian young people it may be wise to
keep uppermost in mind that this militant version of physical cessationism we face today was never really ‘biblical’ in
origin in the first place. However, like
the narratively disconnected and rhetorically
incoherent cesssationisms imposed upon New Testament
texts that preceded it within Protestantism, “Young Earthism”
too resulted from initial position-protecting political motivation, indeed “To
understand twentieth-century creationism, little knowledge of formal science
and philosophy is necessary; familiarity with the Byzantine world of popular
religion is essential” (Numbers, Creationists,
p. 337).
Although Gilkey seems unable to distinguish between a contextually
insensitive literal and a contextual literary reading of the Genesis creation
narrative where the Genesis ‘day’ would be best appreciated by contemporary
Sabbath-keeping readers to be a deliberately ambiguous temporal period, his
strong suit is his ability to penetrate the subterfuge and dissembling of
“Young Earthism” tactics wherein the methods of
science are deliberately misrepresented to the public by a radically oppressive
theology. Gilkey
thoughtfully reflects upon the ‘physical cessationism’
that is dangerous to the public - evidence for the beginning of the universe is
denied, evidence for the Big Bang of Biology or the Cambrian explosion of life
forms is denied, evidence for a creational timeline and the abrupt appearance
of the hominids is denied. In addition,
the hiddenness (Isa 45:15
in its creative context), and the invisibility that God has chosen for Himself
in the present creation, features of the power and divinity of God which are
compatible with these discoveries in creation, is misunderstood and
overlooked. Reminiscent of similar paleoreformed performances, things that are unwelcome are
simply hand-waved away and the research necessary to substantiate quick and
dogmatic public claims is superficially performed while opponents are
pilloried.
It is a pity that Gilkey is unaware of the helpful attempt, probably helpful
to him personally, by orthodox Jewish physicist Nathan Aviezer
to illustrate the harmonious and consistent connections between modern science
and the Genesis ‘days’ (cf. my “Biblical Creation and Science: A Review
Article,” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 39/2 [1996], pp. 289-291; an effort now much advanced
by the work of Fazale Rana
and Hugh Ross, Origins of Life
[Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004]). However, Gilkey
does cite work by physicist John Polkinghorne who
appears to accept theistic macroevolution, but perhaps without sufficient
critical investigation on his part since this is not a theory that physicists
generally regard as an assured experimental finding (and may think it even less
so, given the recent input of Aviezer, Rana and Ross).
Nevertheless, Gilkey is more attuned to the
active threat posed to American culture and to both scientific and theological
education by an authoritarian rationalistic mindset incapable of admitting its
own ignorance and guile, a sect whose beliefs are well characterized by the
Iowa Academy of Science’s 1986 resolution on pseudoscience for the public good:
“Pseudoscience is a catch-all term for any mistaken or unsupported beliefs that
are cloaked in the disguise of scientific credibility. Examples include assertions of ‘scientific
creationism,’ the control of actions at a distance through meditation, and the belief
in levitation, astrology, or UFO visitors.”
Gilkey’s liberal reflection
illustrates that there is no long-term value in continuing to coddle this
anti-scientific sectarian movement within Evangelical and Pentecostal
institutions of higher education. The
version of Christianity represented by “Young Earthism”
prevents scientists from becoming Christians and Christians from becoming
scientists. It may be fairly
characterized, with all due respect, as an unthoughtful
and insular brand of Christianity, and it cannot really be denied, in spite of
the passive stance by some senior Christian administrators, that many of its
confusing untruths may well be very personally harmful to young Christians so
exposed, impairing their credible witness as well. The recent snafu involving Wheaton
College and the Public Broadcasting
System embarrassingly illustrated this unedifying tension in full public view
when the televised program of September
27, 2001, registered its shock in understanding a faculty
representative to mean that Wheaton
had chosen to advance “Young Earthism” as a “possible
option” or a “worthwhile consideration” at a science symposium!
Estimates are that 50% of Wheaton’s
students are exposed to or indoctrinated with “Young Earthism”
before matriculation. At Toccoa Falls
College in Georgia
the estimate is 80%. However, good
intentions cannot mask charlatanical results. Beliefs in a flat earth or in a stationary
earth were not biblical nor were they work products supported by an “inerrant
Bible.” Since well-verified experimental
scientific findings (not scientific theories that may guide experiment) can be
a useful hermeneutical tool, it is not necessary to wait several centuries to
dismiss the main tenants of “Young Earthism.” It is questionable wisdom that continues to
sit on the passive stool of do-nothing, and the ethical and moral stand of the
missionary minded organization, The Navigators, is certainly commendable, cf.
their supportive publication of the biblically and scientifically competent
effort by astronomer/pastor Hugh Ross, A
Matter of Days: Resolving A Creation Controversy (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2004) with its three jacket recommendations by
Pentecostal/Charismatics.
Fear of political retaliation by “Young Earthism”
must be met with the courage of a Copernicus or a Galileo. Such resistance is what Gilkey
is wisely advocating. Russian Nobel
Laureate in physics Andre Sakarhov’s fearless stand
against communist oppression would be a very good model for resistance as
well. We cannot claim excellence in science (or in comprehensive theological
education) and deny the experimental findings of modern science, which is
hypocrisy; neither can we pretend that our natural theology does not affect the
interaction of Christianity with the thinking public.
Churches,
colleges, universities and seminaries had better heed the wakeup call,
especially the emerging educational enterprise of Pentecostalism which, with
their libraries perhaps already overstocked with cessationistic
Evangelical (and even Fundamentalist!) materials, are ripe for infection. Pentecostalism has been forewarned about the
debilitating affects on education by the philosophical, self-willed, and
speculative methods of “Young Earthism” in papers
given to the Society for Pentecostal Studies; one by the former chairperson of
the science department at Lee University,
Myrtle Fleming, is cited by Numbers (Creationists,
p. 307). Presidents of Christian
academic institutions especially need not be timid in stepping up to the intellectual
plate, taking a responsible stand.
Presidents of Pentecostal institutions which are gradually emerging as
centers of Christian excellence in scientific and theological matters need to
band together and take the lead, setting an example to bolster the resolve of
their Evangelical counterparts whose institutions (like the two mentioned
above) are already widely infected. The
short-term consideration of losing a few tuition dollars now and alienating
some Evangelical clientele must be weighed against having to disgorge a
poisonous pill later with even further loss of academic credibility.
It could be
helpful in this regard to recall the recent resolution of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States, who issued their statement to the nation,
concluding that “As a historic representative of the scientific profession and
the designated advisor to the Federal Government in matters of science, the
Academy states unequivocally that the tenets of ‘creation science’ are not
supported by scientific teachers, and that its teaching would be contrary to
the nations need for a scientifically literate citizenry and for a large, well
informed pool of scientific and technical personnel… No body of beliefs that
has its origin in doctrinal materials rather than scientific observation should
be admissible as science… (because it) stifles the development of critical
thinking patterns in the developing mind.”
Gilkey is recently joined in his battle between light and
dark and his concern for national welfare by Nobel Laureate in physics Steven
Weinberg, Facing Up: Science and Its
Cultural Adversaries (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001). Weinberg,
undoubtedly fed up with attacks upon the nation’s science by people who,
despite their acquisition of some academic history, do not appear to understand
science as natural inquiry, but make it up as they go along. The “Young Earthism”
of the Evangelical right has so poisoned and riled the waters that many
scientists, who might normally and calmly consider a credible Christian
testimony, are under the impression that Christians are gullible and mindless
and bent on turning America into a scientifically ignorant theocracy based upon
lies and deceit. Even sensible arguments
for intelligent design are confused with “Young Earthism”
antics. Weinberg, like science historian
Numbers (Creationism, p. 337), sees
“Young Earthism” as an anachronism and is quoted
publicly as saying that it is easier to
believe that the earth is flat than to accept many of its preposterous
claims.
Due to the urgency
of the situation regarding the anti-scientific indoctrination currently
victimizing the nation’s youth, and especially given the gross prejudice being
wrought against Christianity and its ostensibly ignorant hermeneutical methods
as illustrated by the Gospel-perverting dogma of what is really an aggressive
and embarrassing sect, no theological educator or administrator, conservative,
orthodox, neo-orthodox, liberal, or other, can afford to be unaware of the
issues of national concern raised in Blue
Twilight.
Paul
Elbert
Church
of God Theological Seminary
Cleveland,
TN 37311, USA
