The Hinge International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith? Notes from the Editors................................................... 1
Steve Krawiec............................................................... 2 Responses
Reed Acheson................................................................. 14 Christy Clore................................................................. 15 Dalton Coe.................................................................... 17 Ken Kodoma.................................................................. 19 Staci Marrese-Wheeler.................................................... 20
Book Review This Far by Grace: A Bishop’s Journey Through Questions about Homosexuality, by J. Neil Alexander Reviewed by Ginny Hege Tobiassen............................. 23
Fall 2010
Volume 17, Number 2
The Hinge Volume 17, Number 2: Fall 2010 The Hinge is a forum for theological discussion in the Moravian Church. Views and opinions expressed in articles published in The Hinge are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board or the official positions of the Moravian Church and its agencies. You are welcome to submit letters and articles for consideration for publication.
One of the early offices of the Moravian Church in Bethlehem, Pa. was that of the Hinge: “The office of the Hinge requires that the brother who holds it look after everything and bring troublesome factors within the congregation into mutual accord without their first having to be taken up publicly in the congregation council.” — September 1742, The Bethlehem Diary, vol. 1, tr. by Kenneth Hamilton, p. 80. The Hinge journal is intended also to be a mainspring in the life of the contemporary Moravian Church, causing us to move, think, and grow. Above all, it is to open doors in our church.
The Hinge is published with the assistance of the Center for Moravian Studies of Moravian Theological Seminary, 1200 Main St. Bethlehem, PA 18018, and all rights are reserved. Recent issues of The Hinge may be found at www.moravianseminary.edu/center/hinge.htm. Articles in The Hinge may not be republished or posted on the Internet without the express permission of the author and the editor of The Hinge. Articles may be duplicated according to “Fair Use” rules, which allow for discussion in church classes and similar forums. The cover design was provided by Todd Tyson of Kernersville, N.C.
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
Notes from the Editors It is our pleasure to bring you, in this issue, the product of a thoughtful dialogue between the Hinge editors and Dr. Steve Krawiec, retired professor of biology and a member of Central Moravian Church in Bethlehem. Brother Krawiec was a speaker at Central Moravian’s midweek Lenten series, where the topic was an exploration of science and its application to faith, life, and current environmental issues in our world. Intrigued by his lecture, Janel and Christian asked him to put some of his thoughts on paper for The Hinge. As the three editors corresponded and conversed with Steve, interesting questions kept surfacing and turning the developing article in new directions. Conversations about topics ranging from Aristotle to climate change turned to questions about how we define truth, whether faith is an inborn instinct, and whether a lack of consensus about what it means to be Moravian suggests that Protestants have as many points of divergence as scientists. We hope you find this article thought-provoking. We hope you have as much fun reading it as the four of us did talking about it. And we hope it will encourage further conversation where communication has too often been lacking—the area where science meets faith, each ready to enrich the other. — Ginny Hege Tobiassen, Christian Rice, and Janel Rice
1
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us about Faith? Steve Krawiec
Science is a phenomenon of great power. So is religion. Four centuries ago, Sir Francis Bacon declared that we know the world “through our senses.” (In modern times our “senses” are greatly expanded by instrumentation.) Bacon’s contemporary and fellow London resident, John Donne, declared that we know the world “through our souls.”
In general, science is partitioned among discrete domains. Physicists study matter, energy, and motion; chemists study elements and their associations and interactions; biologists study life forms; geologists study rocks in their manifold manifestations; and so forth. These realms are readily recognizable. Scientists imply (and many believe) that these realms are “real,” existing as actual domains—that is, as entities beyond mere conceptions valuable for their utility in ordering observation of the natural world. An unnecessary but common corollary is problematic: Anything beyond the boundaries of these realms is not real—that is, “made up” or imaginary. The axiom (science describes domains of reality) and the needless corollary (anything not scientific is only imaginary) have produced much modern confusion.
Science observes and describes the natural world. Religion observes and describes the spiritual world. Stephen Jay Gould, an eminent evolutionist, called these two realms “the two great magisteria.” Gould contended that the two realms could exist completely independent of one another, “non-overlapping.” Such isolation misses the opportunity to examine how these two magisteria might inform one another. How does appreciation of religion benefit from understanding science?
Steve Krawiec served on Lehigh University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences (Department of Biological Sciences) from 1970 to 2007. He earned an A.B. at Brown University and Ph.D. at Yale University. Steve's research investigated the organization of genetic information in bacteria. He is a member of Central Moravian Church in Bethlehem, PA.
2
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
The distinguished science journalists William Broad and Nicholas Wade (both at the New York Times) have written that science is a “realm of thought where logic and objectivity reign supreme” and that science is “imbued with the virtues of justice, of fairness, of lack of prejudice, of desire for the truth of taking … ideas on their merits alone.” They add, “To a probably insalubrious degree, science has replaced religion as the fundamental source of truth and value in the modern world.”
for a year and then present to him a personal creed and indicate why it was better suited to me than the tenets of a Christian faith. I agreed and readily fulfilled the pledge of attendance. At the end of the year, he asked what I wished to do. I asked for another year. At the end of that second year, the same thing happened. For seventeen years, I attended church nearly every Sunday and also participated in numerous study groups. Finally, Rev. Mervin C. Weidner of Central Moravian Church said, “Enough!” He declared that the behavior I exhibited and the questions I asked were the hallmarks of an active faith. I was confirmed.
Can this be true? And if so, what is the result for science, religion, and society? A Bit of Biographical Background
My religious life, filled with questions, study, and worship, continues to be fundamentally important. I am immensely grateful for this faith journey.
I am a retired biology professor. For decades, my office wall displayed three framed documents. One was a 1963 diploma from my undergraduate alma mater. A second was a 1968 diploma received when I completed my doctorate. The third was a certificate of confirmation that I received at Central Moravian Church (Bethlehem, Pennsylvania) in 1982. I would tell students that the last of these documents was the most difficult to acquire.
So, on the one hand I have extensive experience in science; on the other hand, sustained exposure to Protestant denominations. In this essay I hope to say a little about how I have experienced science and religion as both conflicting and compatible. I will review the character of science, noting its strengths and its limitations. I will then consider how our understanding of the character of science might influence our approach to religion in the present age.
When I was in graduate school, I asked the college chaplain, the Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr., if he would marry my fiancée and me. He asked if I was a person of faith. When I answered no, he asked why I wished to be married in a church. I cited the stained glass windows, the beautiful wood pews and paneling, the organ music… Coffin said this was not good enough. He said that he would marry us if I agreed to attend church regularly
Two Scientific Approaches Science is the analysis of events in nature. Broadly speaking, in nature there are two classes of events: those that recur and those that occur only once or are ongoing. 3
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
To analyze these two different kinds of events, scientists use two different approaches. To analyze recurrent events, scientists construct and test hypotheses—a process often called “the scientific method” (more about this later). For events that are unique or ongoing, analysis focuses on predicting how the past event might affect the future. The analytical tool in this case is model building.
to invalidation. Powerful and useful as they are, they are also tentative and limited. Failure to consider the limitations of models may produce broad and overly confident forecasts (for example: the climate is changing and human contributions, e.g., excessive consumption of fossil fuels, have a significant, even decisive, role). The same failure may also produce unwarranted doubt: When a variable does not exactly conform to a prediction, doubters may simply declare the whole enterprise invalid.
Models. Models are composed of numerous variables deemed pertinent to change in a natural phenomenon. The value of a model lies in how well it can forecast the future— which of course is an impossible standard for evaluation, the future being unknown. For this reason, models are judged partly by how well they account for events of the past. Success with the past then gives confidence about prognostications.
A sophisticated view of the strengths and limits of science favors the more robust view of modeling with recurrent, modified iterations. The simpler, naïve view has emotional appeal but is negligent and correspondingly perilous. (Please see the Appendix on page thirteen for more commentary about models.)
Models are powerful tools. They are also exceedingly complex. Nonlinear relationships exist among variables. Change in the importance of one variable may have implications for the significance of many others.
The Scientific Method. Models are important scientific tools. They are especially useful when forecasts are important. But much of science describes natural events that are recurrent. They will occur in the future just as they have in the past. Here, scientists have the opportunity to identify the relevant variables and relate them in a cause-andeffect proposition. That proposition is called a hypothesis.
Models are also bedeviled by rare occurrences. An improbable event may be noted as a variable and weighted according to its infrequency. But when the rare unpredictable event occurs (e.g., a massive eruption of a volcano breaches an overlying glacier, as occurred recently with Eyjafjallajökull), the weights need to be reformulated.
As described by a hypothesis, some set of antecedent conditions, P, leads inexorably to a set of consequent conditions, Q. This relation can be read as “If P occurs, Q will follow,” or “P implies Q,” or, most strongly, “P causes Q.”
Thus models are not only complex and therefore subject to myriad, difficult-toestablish interrelationships; they are also subject 4
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
Scientists construct hypotheses and then test them. (Indeed, the construction and testing of hypotheses is often perceived as the essence of “the scientific method.”) If P occurs and Q does not, the hypothesis is wrong and therefore rejected. But if Q does occur, the hypothesis graduates to the status of a “working hypothesis” and undergoes further testing, which further increases its strength.
The emergence and rapid ascent of science in the nineteenth century was a product of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, when philosophical perspectives in Western Europe particularly emphasized rational interpretation and empiricism. Science was rational: Standards could be established, and different scientists could achieve identical empirical results by adhering to those standards. Independent replication of results contributed to the sense of validity in scientific observation. In other words, science was objective—and therefore science was true.
Hypotheses can be rejected, but never logically proved. Even if P occurs and Q follows, it can never be established that other antecedent conditions do or do not “cause” Q. The radical science critic Paul Feyerabend claims that the number of conceivable antecedent conditions is limited only by our imagination. Variants of the hypothesis can be tested and not rejected; there are always alternatives. For this reason, hypotheses cannot be proved. Like models, they must remain tentative, serving until their explanatory power fails. (Please see the Appendix for a more extensive consideration of hypotheses.)
Presently, science is an immense enterprise. Membership in the AAAS currently numbers 133,000. In the United States alone, the annual budget for research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health is more than $30 billion. Worldwide, the sum of public and corporate sponsorship of research is staggering; estimates exceed several trillion dollars annually. Science has progressed from the activity of occasional, often brilliant, “natural philosophers” to a major global activity. The developed world sees the pursuit of science as not merely desirable, but a fundamental component of modern existence.
The Modernity of Science Although there were scientists in the ancient world (e.g., Aristotle) and during more recent history (e.g., Francis Bacon or Isaac Newton), science as a worldwide pursuit is a relatively new phenomenon. The British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS), for instance, was founded in 1831 and its American counterpart in 1848. The word “scientist” was recognized in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1840.
The nineteenth century has an impressive legacy of scientific achievement, so much so that Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) allegedly declared that, in physics, nothing more was to be learned. This sentiment extended to other scientific disciplines as well. The current culture embraces the view that science equals certitude: Science’s job is to provide answers and provide 5
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
infinitesimal changes in values of causes. A popular rendering of this phenomenon is that the movement of a butterfly’s wings in China would affect the movement of a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean. Were there the slightest change in the butterfly’s motion, there would be a different atmospheric result in the Atlantic. The difference in outcome might be subtle or dramatic; such is the character of chaoplexity. Although this view is deterministic, it is a more nuanced determinism, involving an extreme sensitivity that exceeds the capacity to measure and, thus, predict outcomes.
them with certainty. Our culture’s expectations of science are high. They are also unfounded. The Collapse of Certainty Lord Kelvin’s view that all principles of physics were established and fully sufficient had a short life. Early in the twentieth century, Werner Heisenberg, while formulating the mathematics of quantum mechanics, articulated the “uncertainty principle.” In its most familiar rendering, the principle asserts that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the velocity of an electron; knowing one reduces the certainty of the other. Additional pairings of variables met with similar uncertainty. Such necessary uncertainty was seen as incompatible with a totally deterministic universe. Scientists began to regard the features of physical entities not as things absolutely known, but more as probabilities.
Theory Displacement. From time to time a “scientific revolution” occurs. A familiar example is the displacement of the Ptolemaic view of the universe, with earth at the center, by the Copernican view placing the sun at the center of the solar system. Both the Ptolemaic and Copernican constructs are sufficient to account for the movement of planets and stars, and, accordingly, to build calendars and to predict lunar and solar eclipses. Since both constructs have similar utility, why favor one over the other?
Within a decade, another theoretical achievement altered the mood of science. Kurt Gödel, a Moravian, enunciated an “incompleteness theorem.” The theorem asserts “that for any self-consistent axiomatic system, there are true propositions in the system that cannot be proved from the axioms.” (Pause and think about this proposition.) Again there is a trade-off. Any system that is consistent is incomplete, and any system that is complete has inconsistencies. Deterministic notions of the universe were further undermined.
The answer is that the Copernican system is simpler. Its calculations are straightforward; those of the Ptolemaic system required numerous iterations (or epicycles). The simpler, more straightforward Copernican construct is judged to be more “elegant” (or, stating the obverse, less messy). “Elegance” is a high standard in science. Its essence is expressed through a prevailing standard called “Occam’s razor,” which asserts that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. The simplest
In the late twentieth century, chaoplexity introduced more uncertainty. Here, an occurrence was seen to be dependent on 6
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
interpretation is to be favored, or, in stronger words, judged correct. Occam’s razor establishes an aesthetic value, simplicity, as a hinge-pin of interpretation.
Science and Religion: Some Perspectives Science is amazingly strong. And its powers are often exaggerated. Both scientists and members of the public often declare that science has proved a hypothesis, despite the logical impossibility. Further, scientists and members of the public often declare that the observations of science are true when they are simply the most coherent present interpretation.
A more recent scientific advance illustrates how data common to two interpretations can shift an understanding from one interpretation to another. Throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, the sun was thought to consist principally of iron. Scientists based this conclusion on spectral analysis, passing light from the sun through a prism and observing the bands of absorption. The data involved were regarded as definitive. But Cecilia Payne, using the same data, read the results to indicate that the sun is principally hydrogen. Through extended scientific dialogue—and possibly by surmounting sexism—her understanding became the current prevailing view.
Even as it claims to be anti-science, religious fundamentalism is deeply respectful (perhaps even envious) of science’s aura of truth-telling. Christian fundamentalism developed in nineteenth-century America when science was especially infused with a sense of certainty. Great achievements (e.g., establishing the speed of light, constructing the Periodic Table, interpreting electromagnetism, discovering the electron and other subatomic particles) gave society a sense of certainty about science’s ability to produce definitive descriptions of the natural world. As society turned to science in search of “proof ” and definitive answers to questions about life, some Christians substituted “proof ” and definitive answers from the Bible. A fundamentalist reading of Scripture is literal and the tone of fundamentalist beliefs is declarative, definitive, assertive… in a word, certain. But this certainty occurs at the price of subtlety, nuance, mystery, and possibly beauty.
Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, stated that most science is an exercise in “filling in the blanks.” Experimenters and those conducting careful measurements seek and then record the expected result. In the course of such activity, they also obtain unexpected results. These too are recorded, and in the course of time, so many accumulate that a reinterpretation of the prevailing view is required. Such a reinterpretation occurred with Payne and her understanding of the sun’s composition. The need to be receptive to reinterpretation is fundamental to science. A corollary is that all propositions in science are tentative.
In The Case for God, Karen Armstrong argues that fundamentalism avoids the hard work that is inevitable in a robust faith. The hard work involves conundrums, incomplete 7
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
presently a declared agnostic, wrote The Evolution of God; upon completing his research he concluded that the universe has a “moral axis” and that life is “purposeful,” two tenets that harmonize more readily with religion than science. Does scholarship affirm a “faith instinct”?
understandings, the difficulties of allegories and miracle stories... in other words, subtlety, nuance, mystery, and possibly beauty. Science is hard work, too. Wrestling with the unknown and extracting a meaningful understanding is daunting. Surely religion and science are kin in terms of effort. What can the two fields learn from one another? What characteristics do they share? And where is it useful to part company?
Science is supposedly neutral. Disinterest, detachment, objectivity are the ideals of science. These mindsets seem, at first glance, to contrast greatly with religion; religion is about passion. But are scientists dispassionate and are people of faith something other than objective? Many scientists have become secular fundamentalists. They insist that the scientific worldview, however incomplete, is absolutely correct. This common attitude belies detachment. In Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science, authors William Broad and Nicholas Wade argue that the epistemological standards of science are rarely applied in practice and that scientists are often motivated by ambition and quests for prestige. Further, Broad and Wade show that scientists are often gullible and susceptible to self-deception and arguments from authority. Despite these common lapses, scientists are, ironically, passionate about their image of neutrality.
Science is receptive to challenge and revision. Religion is too. But there is a difference. Revision is the bedrock of science; revision is orthodoxy. In religion, revision might be seen as heresy; revision is heterodoxy. Nonetheless, history shows that people of faith are greatly receptive to alternate understandings of the tenets of their shared beliefs: There are many thousands of Protestant denominations. And the existence of so many denominations suggests that, in contrast to science—where there is vast agreement about many findings (e.g., the beta structure of DNA is well established)—Christianity lacks consensus. Are all interpretations equally valid? Is religion fixed or flexible? What about within our own denomination? Do we have consensus? How different is the Moravian Church of 1457 from the Moravian Church in 2010? And does location make a difference? How do the Moravian Churches in Nepal, the Czech Republic, and Tanzania differ?
Science professes (vigorously) to be rational. A false obverse is that any other realm of thought is less than rational. The irrational likely does not constitute a “realm of thought.” But what of the non-rational? What of whom we love, what excites our interests, what we
Science is always tentative. In religion is there some deep certainty? Robert Wright, 8
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
“instinctively” defend? Such “non-rational” commitments are central to our identities, and religions seem to embrace these deep investments.
entirely straightforward. Likewise, the Golden Rule. But what of the parables in the New Testament? Some are fraught with complexities that are difficult to unravel. Consider Matthew 22:1-14 or Luke 15:11-32 or Matthew 21:2832 or…
Surely religious scholars can be highly rational. Here the tenets of science directly impact Christian understanding; they do so through the scholarship of textual analysis and literary criticism (not to mention geological understanding of deep time and biological understanding of evolution). Literary criticism examines texts dispassionately to establish the time of authorship, the identity of authors, and subsequent editorial modification. Research reveals that creation stories are widely shared among cultures; these stories are meant to pose the profound questions of existence as opposed to serving as an historical record. Posing such questions (why is there anything if there could be nothing?) is vastly more meaningful than rejecting all of science because it conflicts with a literal reading of creation stories. Here the standards of science—analysis, logic, disinterest—serve modern faith by directing religious adherents toward an ethereal, metaphorical interpretation of scripture.
Organized science is properly viewed as a phenomenon of the last two centuries. Religion, at first glance, seems to have a much longer history. But in the same way that science’s ancient history (the natural philosophers) yielded to the modern world (professional scientists), so religion too has a history of succession. In The Future of Faith, the Rev. Dr. Harvey Cox cites three eras in Christian history. The first four centuries he calls the “Age of Faith” characterized by a “buoyant faith propelled by [a] movement initiated by [Jesus].” The second era Cox calls the “Age of Belief,” when canon and catechism became dominant and an “energetic movement of faith … coagulated into a phalanx of required belief.” This Age of Belief extends to the present day, but Cox sees a new era emerging: the “Age of Spirit” manifest in “movements that accent spiritual experience, discipleship, and hope.” The shift from Age of Belief to Age of Spirit may have centuries-old antecedents that Cox has not emphasized. Certainly the Unitas Fratrum and the Reformation are poignant examples of changed religious practice. Both provided the masses with access to scriptures in native languages. Did this religious openness stimulate scientific inquiry about the natural world? Is there a productive dynamic between
While science fails to be objective, religion has to be more than rational. Science generates models and working hypotheses. At their finest, both models and hypotheses are “elegant”; they are neat, exact, crisp, clear, and unencumbered with needless propositions. And what of religion? Surely there are some elements that are similar. Consider the Ten Commandments. They are demanding but 9
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
changes in these two magisteria? Science’s achievements may have displaced religious authority in the mid- to late twentieth century, as argued by Broad and Wade; but Cox notes a present “unanticipated resurgence of religion in both public and private life around the globe.” This resurgence correlates with a changed mood in science, vastly different from the mood of the nineteenth century. Consider cosmology; it is beset with bizarre claims including dark matter that cannot be perceived, dark energy, antimatter, and so on. Does this lack of certainty in today’s science suggest that religion too will forego certainty and eagerly embrace mystery?
senses. But art and music and poetry, and creativity more broadly, clearly show that we are also made to respond to the natural world at a level beyond the senses. Religion celebrates mystery, the promises of the unknown, and the lure of deeper understandings. Despite these differences in scope, the developments in science and religion have each served the other. Simply stated, the achievement of one challenges the other; the other struggles, responds, and evolves. The benefits (evolutionary adaptations) have been mutual and wonderful.
What drives change in both science and religion? Likely, utility. A worldview, whether scientific or religious, has no merit unless it resonates deeply with its adherents and provides value. As Cox notes, there is much hope in newness when we confront both modernity and the future.
The relations of these two domains—where they are separate, where they intersect, where they overlap—inform us. Science by its essence is confined to the material world; religion acknowledges the material world but strives to discover the divine. Truly, the achievements of the two should thrill us and inspire us to love our world and one another.
Conclusion Science and religion: two powerful, beautiful, valuable realms of understanding.
Isn’t that God’s command?
Science delivers. Scientific descriptions of the natural world have been acclaimed for their insight and accuracy. Coherent and comprehensive accounts of natural events are immensely satisfying for their consistency and predictive power. And practical applications of scientific interpretation have benefited humanity in manifold ways. Religion delivers, too. Science is confined to the natural world as revealed through our 10
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
For Further Reading
Armstrong, Karen. The Case for God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Bodanis, David. E = mc2: A Biography of the World’s Most Famous Equation. New York: Walker, 2000. Broad, William, and Nicholas Wade. Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982. Cox, Harvey. The Future of Faith. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Feyerabend, Paul K. Against Method. London: Verso, 1988. Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine, 1999. Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. New York: Norton, 1999. Greene, Brian. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. Hofstadter, Douglas. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
Holmes, Richard. The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science. New York: Random House, 2008. Horgan, John. The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Sciences. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Morton, Oliver. Eating the Sun: How Plants Power the Planet. New York: HarperCollins, 2008. Plumer, Bradford. “Planet Doom: Nine Scenarios for Imminent Apocalypse—Only One Is Global Warming.” The New Republic, May 13, 2010. Pp. 22-25. Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. New York: Penguin, 2008. Wright, Robert. The Evolution of God. New York: Little, Brown, 2009.
11
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
resulting in a model of thorough analysis but limited reliability.
Appendix: More on Models and Hypotheses Models. As noted in the article’s main text, every model is composed of numerous variables. One way to strengthen a model is to manipulate its variables. Scientists establish the importance of individual variables by weighting their contribution to an outcome. They test the validity of the weighting by altering the weight of one variable, or even omitting one variable entirely, and noting the consequences. Through such iteration, a model can be fine-tuned.
Hypotheses. Hypotheses have a standard structure. In the simplest circumstance, one variable is postulated to be a cause and another an effect. Designate the cause as “P” and the effect as “Q.” “P” is the antecedent condition; “Q” is the consequent condition. The relationship can be represented symbolically using the symbol ⊃ to mean “causes” or, using less strong language, “implies.” So, P ⊃ Q, that is, the antecedent condition implies the consequent condition.
Another way to strengthen a model is to compare it with others. Usually, scientists generate multiple models to explain a natural phenomenon. All are composed of weighted variables. Accordingly, scientists can compare the models, identify common and unique variables, and note different weights. Through such assessments, the merit of different models can be judged.
This relationship can be incorporated into a syllogism (in this depiction, ∴ means “therefore”): P⊃Q P ∴Q In this syllogism, called modus ponens, the first premise, P ⊃ Q, asserts that P implies Q; the second premise is that P exists; the third statement states that Q must also exist.
Because an event is rarely the consequence of a single factor, a challenge in creating models is to identify the most relevant variables and to assess their significance. This challenge creates an inherent tension between reductionism and holism. Reductionism attempts to establish a single variable as most significant, and then views the phenomenon in question as an expression of this supposedly most significant variable. Reductionism harmonizes with the standard of Occam’s razor (see above under “Theory Displacement”).
P ⊃ Q is a hypothesis, and its logical value is established analytically. Logically it is necessary; in common parlance, it is airtight. A related syllogism is modus tollens (here ~ signifies “not”): P⊃Q ~Q ∴ ~P
On the other hand, holism attempts to include all variables. A holistic model may include variables that occur rarely or irregularly,
Again, the first premise, P ⊃ Q, asserts that P implies Q; the second premise is that Q 12
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
does not exist; the third statement asserts that P cannot exist either (because had P existed, Q would also exist; but Q does not exist, so, necessarily, P cannot exist).
reproducibly and independently, and that the antecedent condition has thus been established. But this argument, as noted above, is fallacious. Recurrence of the consequent condition does not demonstrate that the condition recurs only as a result of the antecedent condition used during the testing. Other antecedent conditions may exist.
There are fallacies as well. One is especially relevant: P⊃Q Q
Testing is fundamental to affirming. But testing also reveals why hypotheses are vulnerable; they may be rejected, especially as the testing becomes more rigorous. Imagine that testing has been extensive and exacting and that the hypothesis becomes more refined. So, P* ⊃ Q*. This refined hypothesis is tested and the outcome is ~Q*. Therefore, ~P* (modus tollens). The hypothesis can be refined in other ways and tested anew. But each refinement, ever more exacting and including refinements not yet conceived, is always vulnerable to rejection.
∴P This error is called “affirming the consequent,” that is, declaring that P must exist because Q has been affirmed. The problem is that Q might exist for any of a variety of antecedent conditions, say, P*, or P†, or P!, or P?, or… So, the mere existence of Q does not affirm P in particular. This fallacy has relevance because it is the relationship scientists have used when they claim that they have “proved” something.
This rejection reveals a fundamental feature of hypotheses: They can be tested and they can be rejected. Since there is always the possibility that some variant of the hypothesis can be tested and not rejected, hypotheses cannot be proved. There are always alternatives, and hypotheses are always tentative.
An additional fallacy is “denying the antecedent.” P⊃Q ~P ∴ ~Q The error here is that the absence (denial) of P (second premise) does not assure the absence of Q since Q may be caused by some other antecedent(s), say, P*, or P†, or P!, or P?, or… Affirming the consequent is a significant problem for testable hypotheses. Often a scientist asserts that a consequent condition is caused by an antecedent condition, that the consequent condition is observed both 13
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
Responses Reed Acheson implied by “confirmation.” Still, I raise one of the sticking points of such a reconciliation: the matter of singularities. The scientist calls them rare occurrences or improbable events; religious people might consider them miracles. Singularities, especially where natural law is suspended (as by Jesus’ acts or words), stymie scientific explanation or exceed its credibility; yet singularities are accepted in awe, and appropriated as a matter of personal faith, by most Christians.
The process of “reconciling” science and religion continues to elicit intense commentary.1 Some scientists maintain such a reconciliation should not be attempted and cannot be done.2 Others have found reconciliation in a successful synthesis of passion and enlightenment3—even as still other voices question the authenticity of such a synthesis.4 I am quite sympathetic with Brother Steve Krawiec’s effort to bring science and religion together in his life as both a man of scientific practice and a man practicing his faith. I understand that it is often easier to function scientifically through abiding by Stephen Gould’s criterion of non-overlapping magisteria, but as Brother Krawiec reveals, there is much about life and living that lies beyond hypothesis and model.
To focus the concern: Prayer is an activity that is directed scripturally (“Pray without ceasing,” 1 Thess 5:17; “Whenever you pray..,” Matt. 6:5; “Ask, and it will be given you,” Matt 7:7); practiced in worship “religiously” (intercessory, thanksgiving, petitionary); and believed in faith to be propitious in outcome (whether fulfilling our desire or not, God’s will is done).
I, too, have traveled this journey, and it is as a consequence of that mutual journey that I comment, and presume to extend the thoughts that have been carefully and masterfully offered.
We pray in sincerity, with faith in a divine response that may (will) bring about that “rare, improbable” event. Does a scientific understanding of the way things “are” preclude the possibility of the miraculous (the rare and improbable) response to the faith-filled prayer? Does science simply inform our faith, or can faith, in this instance, open science and its practitioners to the awareness of a realm as
Brother Krawiec provides a concise and insightful analysis of the scientific endeavor. In reading his piece I looked carefully for moments of insight when his personal practice of science actually confronted the mystery and informed his faith accordingly. Although he does not define those moments, I assume they are part of his journey, for surely that is 14
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
subsequently served on the faculty in colleges in Pennsylvania and Idaho. Following his ordination in 1986, he served congregations in Ohio, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. He currently lives with his wife in Allentown, PA.
real as the empirical, and objective, realm of science? I thank Dr. Krawiec for the stimulation to forward these questions for consideration and discussion.
References
1. Krista Tippett, “Reconciling Science and Religion: How Did These Great Minds Do It?” www.Huffingtonpost.com/Krista-tippett, July 6, 2010; Gary Gutting, “On Dawkins’ Atheism: A Response,” New York Times, August 11, 2010.
Christy Clore I am drawn to Dr. Krawiec’s image of the overlap that occurs between science and faith. A song titled “Overlap” by musician and poet Ani Difranco comes to mind:
2. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006); Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve Books, 2007); Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Scribner’s, 1995).
i search your profile for a translation i study the conversation like a map cause i know there is strength in the differences between us and i know there is comfort where we overlap Difranco is clearly talking about human relationship, but I think her words valuable to a look at the overlap between the essences of science and religion.
3. John Polkinghorne, The Faith of a Physicist (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994); Alister McGrath, The Foundations of Dialogue in Science and Religion (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998); Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006).
To me, the overlap of science and religion seems unavoidable, and it enriches the intentional study of either. I graduated from Oberlin College with majors in both biology and religion. My study of the two subjects concurrently leads me to affirm the concept that the standards of science serve a modern and thoughtful faith. I believe science particularly informs a faith that celebrates the mystery of God in all the ways that the natural world surprises us and defies systematic quantification.
4. Michael Ruse, Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?: The Relationship Between Science and Religion (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
A retired Moravian pastor, Reed Acheson received a Ph.D. in biology in 1970, and 15
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
Both science and active religious study require us to search for a translation that allows us to move from what we see and know toward an understanding of what often cannot be touched but only inferred. We must closely study the conversation between the words of the biblical text and the context and desires of the writer putting the words on the page, or between the scientific model and the unexpected results that accumulate to the point that, as Krawiec observes, “a reinterpretation of the prevailing view is required.”
encounter what Abraham Heschel describes as radical amazement. Whether in science or faith, there is a necessary uncertainty; neither provides data that are absolutely known. This is why faith requires practice: It is not enough to simply acknowledge belief or agreement with the ideas presented. We must come into an encounter of the mystery of God through what we know by our senses and what we understand by our souls. Science, too, involves this combination of watching what we see and intuiting, via hypotheses that are always tentative, why what we see occurs.
As we engage our study of God in faith and the created order in science, the tools of analysis and logic matter deeply. I suggest that instead of disinterest, these tools demonstrate the presence, in both studies, of a passionate interest that is able to step back with some objectivity to intentionally search for meaning and order in what is seen and felt. As both a scientist and pastor, I suggest that we know ourselves and our world through both our senses and our souls. Bacon and Donne should both be attended to, for to separate the senses and the soul leaves each missing aspects of the knowing that is available to us.
I resonate deeply with Dr. Krawiec’s statement that “any system that is consistent is incomplete, and any system that is complete has inconsistencies.” If we try to specify the boundaries of what God is, does, or might do, we overlook the deeply creative possibilities of what we profess to be the fundamental ground of all that is. In a Christian faith, of all things, we should be open to the radical amazement that can come when the vastly unexpected outcome greets us. To do less is dismissive of both the parables and the empty tomb.
Howard Thurman, in The Inward Journey, makes a valuable contribution to this conversation: “As long as we are dealing with objects at the level of the senses we think that we are on ground that is safe and therefore certain.... What is forgotten is the fact that life moves at a deeper level than the objective data of our senses.” It is at this level of mystery, of the unknown that lies undiscovered just beyond the concrete perceptions of our senses, that we
Christy Clore most recently served as an associate pastor at Home Moravian Church in Winston-Salem, NC. She graduated from Oberlin College in 2001 with majors in religion and biology and from Emory University in 2005 with a master of divinity. She was awarded a certificate in theological studies from Moravian Theological Seminary in 2005. She is currently taking a leave of absence from active ministry. 16
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
Dalton Coe
serve to point us toward a helpful theological perspective: Humanity is traveling on a path toward more knowledge. It is a journey or a process, and it is ongoing.
It is never too late to learn! As a young man I often heard my father say, “Mind your P’s and Q’s.” I understood that to mean, roughly, “Behave.” This saying is significant to me today because after reading Brother Krawiec’s submission I have a new perspective on what my father was expressing a half-century ago. This likely was my first exposure to the relationship between science (statistical analysis) and theology. I have not since encountered the term P’s and Q’s until I had the pleasure of reading Brother Krawiec’s article. I now understand this saying to mean, “Be careful how you act (P) or you may achieve undesirable effects (Q).”
Because the expansion of knowledge is a process, I think it is fair to say that the Age of Reason is not dead. We celebrate the Age of Reason not because humanity had discovered all there was to know, but because that time in history formed the foundation for a continuous process of learning that exists today. For me, this is a critical assertion. I recently read an interesting article on string theory. I don’t claim to understand much of the theory, but I was fascinated by the author’s conclusion that all that exists in the known universe originated from a particle smaller than a grain of sand—a stunning statement, to be sure, coming from a scientist who had spent a career studying such matters.
The relationship between P and Q has not always been readily apparent. It was less apparent before the so-called “Age of Reason.” As Brother Krawiec noted, the Age of Reason was a time of rapid expansion of knowledge. Emerging from a period of relatively slow progress in the movement to understand the natural world (Dark Ages), humanity made huge steps in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, chemistry and biology. In addition to discoveries in these fields, remarkable music and art also emerged during this period of “Enlightenment.” So much came so fast, it is understandable that some people thought humankind could master any kind of knowledge or skill.
Now, I don’t know how anyone else reads this statement, but to me it comes pretty close to what I understand the Bible to say: “God created the heavens and the earth.” To me this statement clearly implies that before the activity of God, the earth and universe as we know it did not exist. If astronomers are willing to speculate that before what they call “the Big Bang” there was literally nothing, then I have no qualms about taking on faith any of the miracles described in the Bible.
Lord Kelvin’s declaration that in the field of physics there was nothing more to be learned certainly describes the inclination of humanity to define the limits of knowledge. That kind of limited thinking and the flaws it exposes do
The question is, however, what is the relationship between science and theology? I view this relationship much as I view the relationship of a loving parent teaching an infant to walk 17
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
or take its first step. One of the first conscious actions the child makes on its own is to learn to walk. The parent encourages the child, because the parent desires that the child enter the process of becoming an adult, and even this first step is part of the process. So the parent stands the child upright (on its own two feet) and steadies the child by the fingertips. Slowly the parent releases the child’s small fingers and says, “Come to me.” There is, of course, stumbling and falling, but by starting over, time and again, the little child learns to walk.
The desire to know more is part of the nature of humanity. The difficulty for our society is the realization that we can’t “prove” God. We can seek God, but scientific “proof,” as we know it, will not come. Instead, we rely on careful analysis both of the Bible and its context to aid our understanding of the divine. We pursue all knowledge with an insatiable thirst. Still, the pursuit of the unknown can be like chasing a moving target. That, of course, to a non-rational mind may be the whole idea. For both theology and scientific investigation share one goal: hope in the future.
God wants us to “walk.” God says, “Come to me.” And we move toward God by the sequential revelation of the world around us. Science is the enabling motivation for people, and moving toward God is the result. I sincerely believe that is the desired effect of divine encouragement.
In summary, we don’t know what we don’t know. Both science and theology deal with the anticipation of the future. Scientific investigation is, however, only a tool to approach the unknown.
But think again about the child walking: Soon running joins these first efforts at mobility, and then bicycling. In the teenage years the child probably learns to drive an automobile, and then, of course, the parent is “needed” much less. As we become more self-assured we often tend toward less reliance on the one who loves us and is responsible for our being here in the first place. But even in the “teenage years” of our relationship with God we must be ever more conscious that there are consequences for our actions.
God beckons us to come. It is a journey fraught with missteps and pain; but the anticipation of God’s loving embrace at the end of our sojourn compels us to take the next step— always being mindful of our P’s and Q’s. A member of Unionville Moravian Church in Unionville, Michigan, Dalton Coe graduated from the University of Michigan School of Dentistry in 1968 and holds the MATS degree from Moravian Theological Seminary (1990). He practiced dentistry until his retirement in 2003.
As we mature as Christians we try to keep a balance in our walk. We are not prevented from falling. Falling is an essential part of learning. And I believe God is pleased when we learn.
18
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
Ken Kodama
the physics of time. In quantum mechanics the Copenhagen interpretation (the traditional interpretation) makes the role of observer integral to physical reality. The observer, by making an observation of a subatomic particle, causes the probability function (the Schrodinger wave equation) describing the particle (an electron, for example) to “collapse” and to make the particle actually exist somewhere. According to this interpretation, before the observation occurred, the particle wasn’t really anywhere; there were just probabilities about where it could be, as described by the wave equation. The consciousness of the observer, by making the observation, caused the collapse of the wave function so that the particle, in essence, came into existence at the time of observation.
One of the major points that Brother Steve Krawiec makes in his essay is that certainty has been an important issue to scientists. I agree that certainty was the underlying assumption of science in the late 19th century, particularly the preeminence of Newtonian mechanics, which assumed a predictable (predetermined?) future if we could know all of the current states (positions and velocities) of all the particles that make up the universe. As Steve points out, this assumption was blown apart by the discovery of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century. That discovery has led, in turn, to a rethinking of the physical universe in the late 20th and early 21st century. I find particularly compelling Steve’s point that Christian fundamentalism, and a literal interpretation of Scripture, arose in the late 19th century as a direct reaction to the sense of certainty in science at that time. Both science and religion were striving for truth (then as now), and both were trying to get at the truth through an assumption of certainty.
Carroll, a young, respected theoretical physicist from CalTech, indicates his materialist bias when he writes—in a joking tone, but really quite seriously—“Surely we don’t want to suggest that the phenomenon of consciousness is somehow playing a crucial role in the fundamental laws of physics? (No we don’t).” To avoid allowing consciousness a role in the laws of physics, physicists now, according to Carroll, are appealing to the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which multiple universes are created every time an observation is made. Instead of the wave function collapsing, the particle exists in one place in one universe and another place in another universe. These universes diverge, with multiple observers (“yous”) existing simultaneously in the infinite universes constantly coming into existence.
Although certainty in the predictability of the universe collapsed in the early 20th century, my observation is that when investigating the natural world, science still makes an underlying assumption: namely, the assumption of materialism. Even though certainty has been replaced by quantum mechanical probabilities, modern physicists continue to assume that only materialist explanations can be correct and other dimensions of reality must be dismissed. Let me give you an example from Sean Carroll’s 2010 book From Eternity to Here, about 19
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
This interpretation would, of course, require an infinite multiplicity of universes.
or the Spirit. Both science and religion are missing valuable parts of understanding reality by trying to be “certain.”
All this to avoid allowing consciousness a role in the laws of physics? It seems like a stretch to me.
Ken Kodama is a member of Central Moravian Church in Bethlehem, PA. He teaches geology and geophysics at Lehigh University. He received a BA in geology from the University of Pennsylvania and an MS and PhD in geophysics from Stanford University. His research specialty is paleomagnetism, the study of ancient magnetism in rocks.
On the other side of the religion-science coin, I feel that certainty in religion must “collapse” if we are to reach Harvey Cox’s “Age of Spirit.” As Marcus Borg points out in his book Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, faith based only on belief can be undermined by the onslaught of modern scientific advances in our understanding of physical reality. Religious “certainties,” i.e., dogma, have come into conflict again and again with the evolution in our scientific understanding of the world. Destruction of those religious certainties by science will destroy a faith based only on belief.
Staci Marrese-Wheeler I often wonder why more scientists and theologians do not view the discussion of science and religion the way that Steve Krawiec does. Many would still refer to the discussion as “science vs. religion.” In my opinion, to see the relationship between the two as adversarial can only be counter-productive to a greater understanding of either. Gratefully, I acknowledge Brother Krawiec’s ability to see ways that science and religion can be compatible with one another without compromising the nature of either—ways that actually enhance the nature of each.
Borg argues that a faith based on experience will be much more robust in the face of scientific advances. He refers to Henry James’s evidence of the transcultural examples of faith based on numinous or mystical experiences. Experiences of the infinite are a phenomenon that is characteristic of all humankind. I believe that religion clouds the picture by trying to tie down those experiences of the infinite, to make them “certain” with dogma. It is impossible and, I would argue, counterproductive to explain the indescribable in the way that science explains the material world.
Brother Krawiec offers a thoughtful discussion of religion and science. He acknowledges the historical and cultural development of each. He lays out a simple foundation and methodology for each. He compares and contrasts the two. These means of analysis are certainly ways in which the
Science assumes materialism as a certainty in trying to explain reality, while religion tries to explain with dogma, or make “certain,” the true basis of faith, namely, experience of God 20
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
“character of science” can help us look more closely at “faith.”
faith with the same word. In the same way, the institution of science (the big “S,” the academic “halls of science”) and the study of science in an individual’s work are described by a single word.
For me, however, the discussion centers on a point beyond analysis: integration. Will humanity ever accept significant integration of science and religion for a more holistic picture of creation? Can we form a common language between science and religion that allows for greater collaboration and breaks down institutional distrust between the two?
The language problem persists as we discuss topics from each camp, using vocabulary steeped in institutionalisms. Messiah vs. model, hypothesis vs. creed, faith vs. proof, scientific method vs. exegesis: They cannot be compared, for language offers no common ground. The institutional languages of religion and science are subcultures unto themselves. When the institutional terms from both realms are used in broader contexts, there is even more room for misinterpretation. (For example: “What religion are you?” Answer: “ I am Moravian.”) The language of religion and that of science seem to be more mutually exclusive than the two fields themselves actually are.
Most of my experiences have provided me with a bias toward a holistic point of view. I have received calls to ministry in congregations, an interfaith non-profit organization, and a hospice program. I admit my distinct leaning toward looking at life in a holistic manner. But despite my personal preference for working collaboratively, seeing this truth about myself as an individual gives me some insight into humanity’s difficulty with seeing religion and science as parts of an integrated whole. Our experience influences our perspective. Our perspective shapes our language (how we speak), which in turn articulates our thoughts (what we say). It is in the articulation of our thoughts, I believe, that the gap between science and religion widens. In essence, I think that a large part of the problem between religion and science is semantics: words and the meanings of those words.
Recently, in a Facebook conversation among friends, the topic of science and religion arose. One person wrote, “Science is my religion.” I questioned that statement, asking if science could actually be a “religion” without a corporate component of shared rituals and doctrine. Brother Krawiec might answer that question affirmatively, with his statements that would imply this very corporate aspect of science. In his words, “Science has progressed from the activity of occasional, often brilliant, ‘natural philosophers’ to a major global activity … a fundamental component of modern existence.”
Brother Krawiec speaks of religion and faith somewhat interchangeably. He is not alone. We all do in some respect. He speaks of the institution of religion (big “R,” shall we say?) and of religion denoting a personal 21
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
My friend Dan Crump, a student of science and religion, answered my Facebook question this way:
Science that does not recognize itself as a subjective attempt to find meaning and purpose is a lie. Religion that is not based on real experience, injunctions, data, observation, and collective validation is dead. In other words, EITHER science is religion and religion is science OR science is not science and religion is not religion. I hear echoes of Brother Krawiec’s entire article in Dan’s remarks, especially as that article positions utility as the driving force of both science and religion. Brother Krawiec writes, “A worldview, whether scientific or religious, has no merit unless it resonates deeply with its adherents and provides value.” This gives me hope that we are closer to finding our way to a more integrated understanding of ourselves and creation. This gives me hope that we are closer to having science and religion challenge each other to higher standards of ethics. This gives me hope that we will find our way around the barriers of our language and institutions to find our way to common ground. Staci Marrese-Wheeler is pastor of Lakeview Moravian Community Church in Madison, Wisconsin. She graduated from Carroll College in Waukesha, Wisconsin, with a major in English education, and from Moravian Theological Seminary with a master’s in divinity. Before becoming pastor of Lakeview, Staci served in specialized ministry with Ministry Home Care Hospice as a bereavement coordinator. 22
The Character of Science: What Does It Tell Us About Faith?
Book Review J. Neil Alexander, This Far by Grace: A Bishop's Journey Through Questions About Homosexuality (Cambridge, MA: Cowley, 2003). Reviewed by Ginny Hege Tobiassen. In June 2003, clergy and lay members of the Episcopal Church elected the Rev. Gene Robinson bishop coadjutor, the first step in his becoming bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. Episcopal polity required that this election be ratified by both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops. Rarely have the assembled bishops failed to ratify an election, but Robinson’s case was unusual. When they assembled in general convention that July, the bishops would be deciding whether the Episcopal Church would consecrate, for the first time, an openly gay man as a bishop. Among those voting at the 74th General Convention was J. Neil Alexander, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta. In this brief and elegant little book, Bishop Alexander explains how long years of interaction with friends and other clergy, combined with long hours of questioning, study, and prayer, all came together in a moment of decision when he cast his vote at the convention. If you were a teenager in the Southern Province in the 1970s, you will remember Neil Alexander as a Moravian, a prodigiously talented musician who directed the provincial Moravian youth choir Dayspring. As he explains in the book, Alexander chose the Moravian Church for himself as a young teenager after a bitter experience with the church of his childhood. He describes the Sunday that he made his choice: “When we pulled into the parking lot at our church, I got out of the car and walked in the opposite direction to another church a couple of blocks away.... As God’s grace would have it, that Sunday the Moravian Church was having a lovefeast. The opening hymn began, ‘Christian hearts in love united, seek alone in Jesus rest.’ It was wonderful to find a church that believed that God loves me just as I am, with or without a plea.” Alexander spent his youth in the Moravian Church and graduated from Moravian College with a B.A. in music. He went on to further musical studies, then to theological studies in the Lutheran church (in which he was ordained), and finally to Episcopal studies and ordination as an Episcopal priest in 1988. In 2001 he was consecrated Bishop of Atlanta, and in 2006 he was one of four nominees for the post of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (the post that eventually went to Katharine Jefferts-Schori). Neil Alexander is a prominent Christian voice, and it is a blessing for all denominations that he has chosen to speak out—quietly, personably, and clearly—in this book on an important and often divisive issue. In the book’s first chapter, Neil describes his personal journey, which began in the intolerant environment of his Winston-Salem childhood: “I did not grow up in a tolerant context. We were racists, if not white supremacists. We were misogynous. We were anti-Catholic. We were homophobic. 23
The Hinge: International Theological Dialog for the Moravian Church Vol. 17:2 2010
Everything seemed to be based on not being someone else.” As he matured, Alexander learned to see most things differently and began to shed most of his prejudices, but his position on homosexuality remained rigid: Same-sex behavior was forbidden by the Scriptures. Nevertheless, he felt uneasy; his seminary training had taught him the importance of reading the Bible deeply, with attention to context, translation, theological bias, and all of the other factors that may bury the meaning of a verse below the surface. Did his position on homosexuality reflect deep reading of the Scriptures? And did it reflect what he saw in the relationships he developed in both his studies and his parish ministry? Those relationships included outstanding mentors and compassionate friends who, he would learn, happened to be gay. Some were ordained priests. For Alexander, each step in his journey toward a new position on homosexuality—from the rigid intolerance of his childhood to an open and affirming position as a church leader—depended on encounters with both texts and people. Alexander offers us insight into both. Regarding texts, he provides a helpful discussion on the careful reading and interpretation of scripture, then specifically addresses the few Bible passages “generally recognized to be related to the subject of same-sex behavior” (Alexander lists five). Regarding people, he tells thought-provoking stories of personal encounters that shook him and shaped him. Most profound among these stories is his description of the climactic moment that inspired his vote at the 2003 General Convention—the moment at which he realized the real issue at stake. When a brother bishop took the floor to say that he could readily vote for Robinson’s consecration if only Robinson had kept his sexuality a secret, it was like a lightning bolt for Alexander. In effect, he writes, the church was admitting that it would have preferred for Robinson to lie about who he was—that it would affirm him only if he presented himself inauthentically. The issue, says Alexander, was not homosexuality, but truth-telling. Alexander cast his vote in favor of the truth. “The people of God,” Alexander writes, “are a tough bunch. They can handle almost anything if you tell them the truth. They may not like it, but they will deal with it, and they will respect the messenger—if you tell them the truth.... Whatever pain the present moment may cause us, it is mild in comparison to the sickness and disease that will result from continuing to keep secrets and failing to tell the truth in all things.” This Far by Grace is an excellent book, a fine starting place for either personal reflection or group discussion concerning homosexuality and the church.
24
Editorial Board Jane Burcaw, Christy Clore, Otto Dreydoppel, Sarah Groves, Margaret Leinbach, Russell May, Jeff Mortimore, Hans-Beat Motel, Joe Nicholas, Graham Rights, Volker Schultz, Neil Thomlinson Co-Editors: Ginny Hege Tobiassen, Janel Rice, Christian Rice
Send letters to the editor, articles, book reviews, and other contributions to co-editor Ginny Hege Tobiassen at: virginiat1@bellsouth.net
The cost for subscribing to the Hinge is $30. Send checks payable to:
The Hinge
c/o Jane Burcaw Moravian Theological Seminary 1200 Main Street Bethlehem, PA 18018 Contact Jane Burcaw (jburcaw@moravian.edu) to change your subscription information or to request additional copies of The Hinge. The single issue rate is $7.00. The Hinge is provided free of charge to Moravian clergy thanks to the generosity of the Center for Moravian Studies at Moravian Theological Seminary.