THE CHRISTIAN CLERGY LETTER

With over 12,000 signatures the Christian clergy letter is the main letter in the Clergy Letter Project, as well as being the first. This letter deserves particular attention. I have copied it from Wikipedia (Clergy Letter Project), adding numbers for easy identification of different sentences.

The Clergy Letter--from American Christian clergy--An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science (1) Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. (2) While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold in to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. (3) Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible--the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark--convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between the Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. (4) Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth, its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts. (5) We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. (6) We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. (7) To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. (8) We believe that among God's good gifts are minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. (9) To argue that God's loving plan for salvation precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty for reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. (10) We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. (11) We ask that science remain science, and religion remain religion, two very different, but complimentary forms of truth.

Unlike the rabbi letter, which reads like a carefully crafted legal brief, the Christian clergy letter reads more like a sermon or a declaration of faith. It begins in (1) by acknowledging that there are areas of dispute and disagreement over the interpretation of scripture. No problem here, and we might notice that a similar point was made in the rabbi letter. The Christian clergy letter continues in (2) by claiming that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not read the Bible literally. There is no counterpoint to this claim in the rabbi letter--and I see a big problem here. I neither know nor care whether the claim is true--but I object strenuously to anything resembling a suggestion that the public schools don't need to show respect for the religious views of what is only a small religious minority in this country.

Sentence (3) refers to beloved stories of the Bible--the creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark--conveying timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation. But the letter does not say what timeless truths are being conveyed. All three stories convey the message that God is a being that is higher than we are. The story of Adam and Eve conveys the message that we are not to pursue knowledge if that is against the Word of God. The story of Noah and the ark conveys the message that, like Noah building the ark, we are to follow the Word of God even if doing so goes against all reason. We do not have to acknowledge that these stories convey timeless truths, but if we wish to do so, like over 12,000 American clergy who support evolution, let us at least be honest about what those truths are.

In (5) the letter affirms the belief that the timeless truths of the Bible may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. But it is simply unreasonably to expect that the coexistence will always be a comfortable one. And if we wish to talk about coexistence, we should be honest about what the timeless truths of the Bible are, as well as being honest about the discoveries of modern science.

In March 1860, seven different liberal Anglicans published a book called ESSAYS AND REVIEWS which sold more copies in two years than Darwin's book did in twenty. According to Wikipedia, one of the authors, Baden Powell, restated his claim that (i) God is a lawgiver, (ii) Miracles break the lawful edicts issued at the creation, and so (iii) A belief in miracles is atheistic. Baden liked Darwin's masterful book would bring about an entire revolution in opinion in favor of the self-evolving powers of nature. But Baden's argument that a belief in miracles was atheistic was pure sophistry. The belief may be wrong, but obviously a belief in a God who performs miracles is a belief in a God, and no belief in a God, no matter how erroneous it might be, is an atheistic belief. Such sophistry by supporters of evolution was there in the beginning, and it has continued to this day.

The more than 12,000 clergy who signed the Christian letter stated in (6) "We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." They signed a statement of their belief regarding a scientific matter with no more scientific expertise than the clergy who oppose evolution; this is something the rabbis were very careful not to do. The clergy refer to evolution as a theory--but one of the major complaints against the teaching of evolution in the public schools is based upon it being taught not as a theory, but as a scientific fact. The clergy continue (7) "To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Here we see clergy attacking even the teaching of the balanced view of evolution and creation advocated by Clarence Darrow during the Scopes trial as ignorance and transmitting ignorance to children.

Up to this point while the Christian clergy have been harshly critical of a belief in literal creationism, the criticism has been of a secular nature. But in (8) and (9) see criticism that is blatantly religious. "(8) We believe that among God's good gifts are minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. (9) To argue that God's loving plan for salvation precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty for reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."

I think any reasonable person would have to acknowledge that what we see in Christianity today is not simply a willingness on the part of many churches to accept evolution, but what we are seeing is many churches and clergy that make evolution a part of their religious teachings--and view a belief in literal creationism as sinful. The Baptist Standard has an Internet article dated February 6, 2009 titled "Evolution Sunday says dichotomy between faith and science is false." It begins "While many Christians view evolution as a threat to religion, a growing number of churches view Darwin's 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of his seminal work The Origin of Species as something to celebrate." I don't think Reform Jews would ever celebrate a Pork Sabbath to affirm their belief that it is no longer necessary to follow the strict kosher laws of the Orthodox Jews--but that seems very much like what many liberal Christian churches are doing with regard to evolution.

Next the Christian clergy say "(10) We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of evolution as a core component of human knowledge." If over 12,000 Christian clergy are going to join together to tell school boards in this country what to teach as part of the science curriculum, I think we have a responsibility as a nation committed to religious freedom not to do what they are telling us to do. What these clergy are asking is very different from what the opponents of evolution are asking. The opponents are asking that something they find offensive not be taught, or be taught in a way that shows a greater degree of multicultural sensitivity. What the 12,000 Christian clergy are saying is that believing in anything but evolution or even questioning whether evolution is true is sinful--and they are asking is that our public schools teach what has clearly become a religious belief for many Christians as the only way in science classrooms throughout our nation.

The clergy conclude by saying "(11) We ask that science remain science, and religion remain religion, two very different, but complimentary forms of truth." That is what these clergy say, but their actions only serve to blur the distinction between science and religion--or at least that would be true if we were to believe that evolution was ever more of a science than a religion. Whatever else the dispute between evolution and creation may be, it is clear that is also an internal dispute withing Christianity. The American public schools have an absolute responsibility not to take sides in this dispute.

There are people who look at evolution as science, and not religion. Perhaps the rabbis who signed the rabbi letter would be included in this group. But it was not these people who fought the battle to have evolution taught in the public schools, and it is not these people who have determined just how evolution is taught in the public schools. There is an honesty on the part of real scientists that is woefully lacking on the part of most supporters of evolution. This is a matter which I plan to pursue in future posts.

EVOLUTION SUNDAY AND THE CLERGY LETTER PROJECT

Every year for the past few years, numerous churches celebrate Evolution Sunday on the Sunday closest to Darwin's birthday. As far as I know there is no Gravitation Sunday on the Sunday closest to Newton's birthday or Relativity Sunday on the Sunday closest to Einstein's birthday. If we are to believe that evolutionary biology is just like any other field of science, why is there an Evolution Sunday when no other field of science is so honored by these churches?

To answer my own question, people who opposed evolution on religious grounds pushed, and people who supported evolution pushed back. More specifically, people who oppose the teaching of evolution in the American public schools pushed, and people who want the public schools to teach evolution and only evolution as an explanation for our origin pushed back. Evolution Sunday is an outgrowth of the Clergy Letter Project organized by biologist Michael Zimmerman in response to a local school board which had passed some anti-evolution policies, and after he heard Christian fundamentalist television clergy insisting that decisions about teaching evolution in schools was equivalent to a choice between heaven and hell. At first the letter was limited to Christian clergy. According to Wikipedia, Zimmerman stated that "Since it is fundamentalist Christian ministers who have been shouting to the American people that they must choose between science and religion, it seems reasonable to have thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy assert otherwise. It simply wouldn't be very persuasive to have the leaders of other religions saying to Christians that Christian fundamentalist ministers are not speaking for all Christians...the Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Sunday are not designed to change the minds of fundamentalists. Rather, our goal is to educated the vast majority of Christians who, if told they have to choose between religion and modern science, are likely to opt for religion." It is interesting to note that didn't seem to have any personal problem with leaders of other religions expressing a view about who should be allowed to speak for all Christians, but only refrained from including non-Christians in the Project for tactical reasons. Obviously, he changed his mind later, adding a Jewish rabbi letter, and a Unitarian Universalist clergy letter. A rabbi letter makes some sense since there appear to be increasing numbers of Jews who are outspoken against Evolution as the Only Way. But I can only see the Unitarian Universalist letter as giving Unitarian and Universalist clergy the opportunity to preach at faith communities other than their own. I really don't think there are a lot of Unitarians or Universalists who need to be convinced to come on board in support of evolution.

All three letters can be found in the Wikipedia article "Clergy Letter Project". The rabbi letter is quite different from the other two. "The Clergy Letter--an open letter from American rabbis--An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science As rabbis from various branches of Judaism, we the undersigned, urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the teaching of evolution to be in conflict with their personal beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach of the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective homes, religious institutions, and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular perspective in an environment that is supposed to be free from such indoctrination. The Bible is the primary source of spirtual inspiration and of values for us and for many others, though not everyone, in our society. It is, however, open to interpretation with some taking the creation account and other content literally and some preferring a figurative understanding. It is possible to be inspired by the religious teachings of the Bible while not taking a literalist approach and while accepting the validity of science including the foundational concept of evolution. It is not the role of the public schools to indoctrinate students with specific religious beliefs but rather to educate them in the established principles of science and in other subjects of general knowledge."

Strictly speaking, the rabbis as school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. In context, however, I believe their concern is not that evolution be taught, but that creationism not be taught. I think indoctrination is a rather strong term to refer to teaching creation as only one possible explanation for our origin. But I can go along with the idea that even mentioning creation as a possible explanation for our origin is unacceptable in the public schools, as long as we take the same position with respect to even mentioning evolution as a possible explanation of our origins. The rabbi letter says that teaching creation is religious indoctrination which would violate the separation of church and state if done in the public schools. Beyond the issue of what is done in the public schools, the rabbi letter simply seems to be saying that it is legitimate for people to interpret the scriptures literally or not. No criticism is directed at anyone based upon whether they interpret the scriptures literally or not. I am quite sure that if I wanted to become a Jew and wished to join one of the rabbis' congregations, that the rabbi would not tell me what I had to believe with regard to evolution or creation but leave the matter up to me. I am also sure I could also be a member of the congregation without feeling I was under attack based upon my personal views regarding evolution or creation. Which suggests a question. Could a person be a member of one of the Christian or Unitarian/Universalist congregations and not feel under attack regardless of the person's views on evolution or creation? I think not. I think a person who believed in literal creationism would be made to feel just as uncomfortable in one of these congregations as a person who believes in evolution would be made to feel in many fundamentalist congregations.

According to the rabbi letter, "Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools." This is an acknowledgement that the Christian clergy letter does not make. But there is still a problem. As we might express it in the language of the Bible, a lot depends upon whose ox is being gored. As long as people are required to support public education with their tax money, whether they like it or not, nobody should be expected to put up with anything that would be too offensive on religious grounds. For these rabbis, this almost certainly means not teaching Christianity in the public schools. For fundamentalist Christians this means not challenging the truth of the Bible in the public schools. These rabbis do not appear threatened by the teaching of evolution in the schools, but object to anything resembling the teaching of creation in the schools, presumably because of a concern that it would open the door to things down the road that would truly be offensive to them. Fundamentalist Christians object to the teaching of evolution because they see it as challenging the truth of the Bible. Obviously the major concerns of both these rabbis and fundamentalist Christians could be answered by simply not teaching anything about our origins in the public schools. People who want evolution taught to their children could do so in their homes, religious institutions, or in private rather public schools. But that even handed approach which would treat everybody in an equal fashion is not good enough for those who insist that the public schools teach evolution and only evolution as the explanation for our origin.

My wife is Jewish. She told me that when she was in the public school as a student, there was a teacher who didn't like Jews and purposely scheduled tests for Jewish holidays when Jewish students would be absent, and then did not allow make up tests for them. If that was legal then, it certainly would not be legal now--even if the tests were not purposely scheduled to fall on Jewish holidays. If we want to know what accommodations would or would not be reasonable for Christian fundamentalist students in the public schools, we might well start by asking what accommodations are and are not made for Jewish students. One accommodation that is made involves religious holidays--these are considered excused absences, with a guaranteed right to make up missed graded work. Another accommodation involves diet, with a much greater effort to satisfy religious dietary requirements than would be made for mere secular dietary preferences. On the other hand, the official Jewish Sabbath begins Friday at sunset. Numerous schools activities such as football games are scheduled for Friday night during the official Jewish Sabbath.

So we see that Orthodox Jewish students who choose to attend the public schools would be guaranteed the right to a basic education that would not be in conflict with their religion--but that a lot of the extras that are available to other students would not be available to a student who kept the traditional Jewish Sabbath. At least this would be true if these students were not bothered by the teaching of evolution. Christian and Jewish students who see evolution as being in conflict with their religious beliefs are treated rather like my wife was by the teacher who hated Jewish students. Evolution is taught in your face with supporters of evolution objecting to even the slightest multicultural accommodation being made for students who find evolution to be in violation of their religious beliefs. This level of bigotry towards people who believe in the literal truth of the Jewish scriptures is not found in the rabbi letter. But as far as the Christian clergy letter is concerned....I think this post is long enough already, so that is a matter that I will leave for my next post.