Building Bridges - 02

Paradigm  Shift

In the previous article the point was made that we are being confronted with a Paradigm shift. A paradigm is a model, mold, ideal, standard, pattern, prototype or archetype. When we apply the name to a society or civilization, we are talking about a manner in which that society or civilization operates. We are talking about the general mindset of that society, a mindset that has been shaped by centuries of doing things a certain way. A challenge to that mindset is normally resisted vigorously as it is perceived as questioning centuries old customs. An example of such a scenario can be seen in the society in which the scientists Copernicus and Galileo lived. Society at that time operated from the premise that the earth was the centre of the universe. When Copernicus and Galileo, after years of study, published their finding that this was incorrect, their society was faced with a paradigm shift. This, as is well known, caused an uproar as the Church had to recant and/or question any number of dogmatic statements. The result was that Galileo, in order to escape being burned alive, had to  swear that his findings were wrong. 

Looking back at that era and contemplating the fact that it was only recently that the Roman Catholic Church admitted to have been wrong in persecuting Galileo and has agreed that there may be more to the theory of evolution than is obvious on the surface, one wonders why it took the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church so long to acknowledge  these scientific changes even though the secular society had long been governed by them. Can this have something to do with the maintenance of institutional power? 
Before the Protestants gloat about this reluctance by the Roman Catholic Church to conform to known scientific facts, they ought to consider some of their own hang-ups. Many Protestant denominations to this day refuse to go along with an evolutionary environment.

What can we learn from that episode? The main lesson for the Church is that any institution (religious or otherwise) which refuses to harmonize its official teachings with reality, will ultimately loose out as its credibility becomes eroded. Once an institution lets its credibility slip, a general malaise sets in, adherents start to leave and it becomes ever harder to maintain one's membership at the same level. In this example, the removal of earth from the centre of the universe and the subsequent discovery that we inhabit an evolutionary environment, caused an erosion of trust within the Christian community as the religious hierarchies continually resisted (and still resist) the introduction of any ideas that seem to contradict traditional thought. This erosion of trust was slow at first, but moves ever faster as the dissemination of knowledge picks up speed. As mentioned previously,  with the stubborn refusal of the religious institutions to accept the scientific findings, adherents leave to look  for other homes where both their intellect and spirituality are acknowledged and properly nourished.

Christianity today again faces a similar challenge but is also given, again, the opportunity to do something constructive with it. What better opportunity for us, members of the United Church of Canada, to make a positive contribution. We can use the occasion of our 75th anniversary to initiate a movement to take a fresh look at the things we believe in and stand for. As was noted by Rev Greg Smith-Young, this will be a difficult and possibly traumatic exercise. The rewards however are worth striving for. The challenge and invitation are ours. 

What new knowledge are we presently confronted with that would force us to rethink our Christian tenets? The knowledge is not new as such. But just as it took a while for the Copernican knowledge to rise to the level  where it had to be dealt with by the powers that be, so today we are face to face with an accumulation of scientific knowledge that forces us to deal with it if we are to maintain and grow in our level of humanity. 

The information that shocked (and must have infuriated) the leaders of that bygone era, was that the earth was  NOT the centre of the universe. This meant that the three decker model, with a stationary earth bracketed by heaven and hell, could no longer be maintained. This in turn raised questions about the location of heaven and hell as up and down could no longer be indicated with any degree of precision, and worst of all, it moved God further away from His accustomed place in the heavens. It is difficult to imagine how this changed model of the university impacted the society of that era. It would be interesting if a historian would inform us how the thinking had to change and how that was done. It would be even more interesting to hear the specifics of how the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church resisted the changes and maintained the status quo. 

The knowledge we have to deal with today can be epitomized in the picture at the beginning of this essay. If we contemplate it carefully, there are several observations we can make. 
a) Earth looks beautiful.   
b) Earth looks isolated and so lonesome. (Is there anybody out there?) &
c) Look closely please and observe that there are no artificial boundaries visible. Whatever boundaries are visible are natural in origin. They are mountain ranges, rivers, plains, impenetrable forests and the like. Nothing artificial about them. This means that all the boundaries we see on our maps are artificial constructs and these artificial borders may be there for a long time, but they remain only as long as there are folks who can maintain their integrity. If a stronger group comes around, the markers may be moved and the maps are redrawn.

Having noted these observations, the question is why we need to rethink and restate our fundamental beliefs. The answer is that this needs to be done as many of the Christian belief statements can not be maintained in the light of accumulated knowledge from any number of disciplines such as psychology, sociology, archaeology anthropology, paleontology as well as literary and biblical studies. In order to make sense out of this we have to establish what it is that Christianity has taught us over the two millennia it has been around. During a large part of that time it has been the dominant religious force if for no other reason than that the white race (Europeans) became dominant and conquered much of the globe.

What were some of the Christian tenets that were propagated?

In the beginning God created the world in 6 days. God ended that "project" by creating humanity in His image and making them the custodian of all creation.

In order to make humanity comfortable, God created the Garden of Eden where He often came for a visit and an evening stroll in the garden with Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately, the Garden also contained the seeds of disobedience and destruction. Eve, or so the lesson goes, couldn't contain her curiosity, "fell" for the temptation and caused the human race to live a miserable life in the shadow of SIN.

God being a just God can not condone sin in any way shape or form and demands reparation (restitution) of some kind to be made. As it had been humanity which caused the separation from God, it was humanity which could be expected to provide the wherewithal to restore the situation. 

Since humanity proved to be incapable of providing the means of restoration, the situation looked grim and all seemed to be lost. God however, in His mercy, gave His only son to die in the place of (guilty) humanity. 

Jesus died on the cross, was buried and was raised on the third day. Before his ascension, Jesus instructed his disciples to go and make disciples of all the people in the world in preparation for his imminent return.

The assumption at the time was that Jesus would return to earth within the life of the disciples. That obviously hasn't happened, and since it didn't happen, Christians the world over live in a perpetual state of expectation of the return of Jesus. 

Christians in the meantime have been taught, and are teaching, that there is only one road that leads to salvation, and that road is attained by (sincerely) believing that Jesus is the son of God who has died for our sins. This doctrine has become known as the Fall-Redemption model. It ends with all of humanity assembled before God on judgment day in order to learn their final fate/destination.

These doctrines can be found in greater detail in the 20 Articles of Faith. 
The synopsis of that thesis is that the human being stands at the apex of creation, and (sincere) Christians stand at the apex of humanity.

 Anything wrong with that scenario? Yes, there is. It is no longer good enough as that scenario can't be made to  harmonize with the story as it emerges from the findings of scientific studies. Rather than get involved in an argument about the validity of any scientific theories, I would like to finish this presentation with the words of Chet Raymo, the author of the book "Skeptics and True Believers". He puts it this way:

"The Scientific Revolution has given expression to a radical new idea, that had been perking away in the background of human thought since the Greeks, perhaps the most revolutionary idea in the history of human thought: The cosmos exists independently of ourselves. We are small contingent parts of something that existed long before we appeared on the scene (and will exist long after our species is gone, PV). Human life could vanish from the earth, and the cosmos would continue. We are as incidental to the cosmos as are ephemeral mayflies to the planet earth." (p 222)

To deal with the consequences of that statement is already a formidable task. Will we undertake it? I hope the membership and GC can be persuaded to do so. In addition to that there are members of the United Church, like Ron Smuin, who ask whether it is possible to explain the Bible in a fashion that would replace the Fall-Redemption model with another one. That is a different approach, but is as important (if not more so) as it forces us to deal with the Bible and its interpretation. Both these approaches give the United Church of Canada a unique opportunity to study the 20 Articles of Faith from a different perspective.

Shalom. 

Peter VanderKam

Next article: Building Bridges_3, the Bible, its history, development and message.

Table of contents  or  Next