Slippery Slopes

I am really wanting to move from this science/theology discussion (one-sided as it is). This is especially because of Bjorn's post where he asked the question "are we asking the right questions". I was challenged (convicted) by this question as I know that there are more important issues to focus on...like giving to the poor, caring for the widows (we have one down the street), sharing Christ's love. So I promise, I will be moving on after this post.

One thing that has come up in many of our conversations of late have had to do with how we read the old testament and make applications to today's world. I know there are applications to be made - good ones at that - I just like to argue it isn't as easy as "whatever the old testament says, it has to be good for us now" (or something like that). I like to argue, as many of you know, that the old testament was written by people (even inspired by the God), but their ancient, "flat-earth", unmovable-earth perspective would have clearly influenced their view of God and how the Earth worked. The response I tend to get when I share this view is that it is a "slippery slope" or "dangerous". I can understand that response - really I can. My response back has been, the Bible is dangerous (look at all the people who have died because of the man's use of the Bible throughout history). But that's not the argument I want to actually use to disagree with the slippery slope argument.

A former student of mine, now at Lehigh University, is studying environmental science. I had her in my ES class last year and she has emailed me a couple of times this year to share what she is doing in her classes. She emailed me a link to an article about Illinois Rep. John Shimkus. Mr. Shimkus is running to be the head of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a key role in climate policy for the US. The video below is from 2009 where he was addressing a panel dealing with climate change policy. His comments to me are scary, and I would argue, very dangerous both for humanity (especially if you take what the majority of scientists - Christian and non-christian say about climate change) and for skeptics/seekers who would clearly be put off by such an ignorant stance. It bothers me that Daniella is seeing this and thinking this is what "Christians" think about climate change. (I think I will be emailing her to let her know my "Christian" views of the issue - I suppose I can do that know that she is graduated.)

According to Shimkus, it is a theological issue that the Earth is carbon starved. What? When dinosaurs were alive CO2 was at 4000 ppm (we are at 385ish today). Yes, but that was 65 million years ago! Not to be trite, but his Biblical literalism is probably telling him that 4000 ppm was only 7,000 years ago and dinosaurs walked the Earth with man. This is just not true. These views are dangerous and I would argue a bigger slippery slope than when we debate over the factual nature of events of the old testament or the allegorical nature of them. This is a guy who could very well be influencing very important policy for not only our country but also for poverty stricken, water starved and island-based nations who will likely be hard hit by climate change. His whole basis for quoting scripture is ultimately to argue for protecting economic development in the US. Ugg...I need to stop.



I leave you with this quote from St. Augustine (taken from The Language of God by Francis Collins, p. 156-157) as I think it sums up my position very well with regard to Mr. Shimkus. (And I promise to take a break from the science-theology conversation - unless of course someone brings it back up)

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but the people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?"

(Ok, this has to get some comments. Talk to me. Peace.)