The "gift" this week of an unpleasant case of bronchitis allowed me a recent night of little sleep. Rather more as a distraction from the coughing and chest pain than anything else, I decided to check out the video offerings from the PBS program Nova, a favorite of mine for many years (and, I suspect, a favorite of many others given this program's longevity). As I had watched all of the most recent episodes, I went back a bit to last year and decided that the three-part series from 2009 on human evolution ( Becoming Human ) would be enough to get me through the night. As it turned out, I initially dozed off about 3/4 of the way through program one, but I managed to re-watch that along with parts two and three over the past couple of days. Although it may seem strange programming for Holy Week, it got me thinking again about the difficult intersection of Christianity and science and how we might be enriched in our religious lives by not just a "polite nod" to the "truths of science" but a genuine attempt to incorporate these paleoanthropological insights into our religious world view. Specifically, I was thinking critically against a "lukewarm" modern "liberal" religious viewpoint in which we accept the conclusions of evolutionary anthropology as the "way" the theistic personal God created humans, and then simply go on about the rest of our religious business as if nothing had changed. We continue to espouse such inconsistent ideas as creation in the divine image, the fall, original sin, the incarnation and such with no attempt to reconcile/revise/abandon these "marooned" doctrines (all looking back to the second creation account in Genesis understood as somehow historically or historically-metaphorically true) which are now without historical reference with the real history revealed by the paleoanthropologists.
We are all familiar, of course, with how modern physicists are "dabbling" in ultimate ideas and producing works of a religious character. We are also equally well aware of the vehemently anti-religious works of evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. It seems particularly odd, however, that the very branch of science that should be so close to religion, since it includes the particular studies of humanity, is now at greatest odds with religion. Is a true blending of Christianity and modern evolutionary anthropology possible, or are we doomed to simply shout at each other across the chasm of differences that divides religious and scientific language?
The Nova programs don't bother to argue about the truth of the "theory" of evolution of the human species and give "equal time" to the pseudo-science of "scientific creationism." They simply pick up the evolutionary story with the Australopithecines, focusing first on Australopithecus afarensis, the most famous example of which is "Lucy," the remarkably complete skeleton from Ethiopia discovered by Johanson in the Great Rift Valley in Eastern Africa, the "cradle" of hominid development. More than any other program that I have watched before, this three-part series took time to do scientific reconstructions of the faces of our ancestors and also to integrate other findings in the archaeological and geological records that give us some clues as to not just their bodily morphology but also their lives, environment and cultures. This added an aspect of realism to what is often just pictures of fossil skeletons and morphing photos showing images of hominid species melting into the next in an orderly succession.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the current version of our human origins story is that we do not trace one smooth succession from species to species culminating in a single "end" product of Homo sapiens. We discover rather that, probably from the common ancestor of Homo habilis, the first in our genus and probably the first "tool maker," at least three (perhaps four) species of humanity evolved and eventually coinhabited the ancient world and probably had contact and perhaps even competition. We know these as Homo erectus (and possibly related "hobbit" Homo floresiensis), our close cousin Homo neanderthalensis along with ourselves, Homo sapiens. That H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis overlapped and coinhabited ancient Europe cannot be doubted. It is less clear whether H. sapiens and H. erectus "encountered" one another, although their periods did overlap. One wonders how our religious view of humanity (conceived of as just our species) would have been different (e.g. vis-a-vis myths such as the Genesis accounts) if there were not one, but three intelligent hominid species to account for? What "creation myth" might we tell? How would that influence such "core doctrines" as that of the creation of humanity in the "divine image?"
Among the images/scenes scenes that I found particularly moving in the series was one of a reenactment of a burial ritual for H. erectus in southern Spain. In that location, a burial pit has been discovered holding the skeletons of many individuals. It would seem unlikely that this would have been a "natural" occurrence, so one must conclude that the individuals were placed there intentionally. Even more moving was the discovery of a pink granite hand axe amongst the remains. The stone of the axe was not from anywhere nearby but had to have come from a place far distant, suggesting possibly migration or even trade across distances. More importantly, such an item would have been a valuable possession for an individual and not one that would have been abandoned lightly. Its inclusion strongly suggests a ritual event that included a grave offering for the deceased. Here then, clearly preserved, are the remains of "religious" pre-Homo sapiens humans. If one postulates a divine, personal creator god for whom evolution was the "process" by which he created H. sapiens in "his image," then what of his first human children? Were they merely "means to an end," or did God simply love them less?
Equally moving were the dramatizations of the "encounters" between H. neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens. We now know that neanderthalensis were the first to arrive in Europe of the two species. It also appears that the arrival of H. sapiens was associated with the disappearance in short order of the neanderthalensis individuals who were pushed progressively into more and more marginal areas, finally perhaps having a "last stand" on the Gibraltar rock where the latest evidence of their inhabitation can be found. The reason for the decline of the neanderthalensis species is far from clear, but it appears that these larger/heavier and probably larger-brained individuals (i.e. than H. sapiens) had an enormous caloric "appetite" requiring perhaps as much as 5000kCal per day to hold body and soul together. They also appear to have practiced hunting at close range with hand-held weapons such that many of the mostly adult males have evidence in their skeletal remains of multiple broken bones. The lighter, less-calorically-needy H. sapiens who had developed somewhat more complex tools (such as throwing spears) and who were faster and required fewer calories were, perhaps, ultimately more successful in competing for limited resources and simply displaced the less-adaptable H. neanderthalensis individuals.
Where again, do we find in this very human story the unique creation of humans in the "divine image" or evidence of "the fall" or original sin? If these central "doctrines" in Christianity really hold very little water when subjected to a comparison with real history, then why do we persist so strongly in trying to hold onto them? Although I found Robin Meyers book, Saving Jesus from the Church, to be a bit tiresome in its stridency, I did copy a quote that I continue to go back to – "If we continue to believe that we did not come up out of the earth, but were dropped from the sky, then Jesus will continue to be understood likewise as an invader, a harpoon shot from God's bow to reel in the perishing. He will not be a teacher but an elevator operator. He will bring us not wisdom but self-aggrandizement. He will not give us an assignment but a certificate." And to quote Bishop Spong, "To believe dated concepts with the human brain is not a sign of orthodoxy; it is a sign of being spiritually dead."
While I respect, in many ways, phenomena such as the "Emergent Church" movement, I feel sometimes that it is really too tied to the old views of Sola Scriptura, possibly because so many are entering the movement from the starting point of Evangelicalism. It is saddening also that, even in the relatively broad-minded circles of The Episcopal Church, persons are often quickly attacked for so-called "unorthodox" views. Having experienced such attacks myself, I have, I suppose, been reluctant to try to "brainstorm" new ideas for revision of traditional theistic Christianity with its obsession with "the fall," original sin, the incarnation and such. We may have moved forward with regard to some social issues such as sexuality (much to the dismay of reactionaries in other parts of the Anglican communion), but theological experimentation is still viewed with a great deal of suspicion and one often encounters a fire blast of anger directed at anyone who would question "core doctrine" or try to reinterpret it. As Bishop Spong puts it, "When their religious authority claims are challenged, their typical response is not to enter a rational discussion, but to engage in revealing anger. Anger never rises out of genuine commitment; it is always a product of threatened security."
Many more progressive Christians today are finding themselves drawn into mystical practices, and I can say that I too feel this pull. Mainline protestants in particular have been particularly deprived of many traditions of prayer, meditation and contemplation that are our common Christian heritage, and the re-discovery of practices such as centering prayer and the like are welcome developments. What we need, however, is also a cognitive and rational aspect to serve as a worthy partner and corrective for the less-definable mystical experience. These insights need to be experienced both intellectually/academically as well as liturgically if they are to contribute equally to our religious lives as an integrated whole. Unfortunately, the experience mystically continues to be in search of a historically and scientifically aware cognitive religious partner.
Before someone writes to me about the works of Teilhard de Chardin, let me say that, while I respect and honor his legacy, I find that his "grand scheme" approach has rather too much of an element of artificiality. I share, I think, with many post-moderns a suspicion of grand schemes and narratives. His view of evolution as trending towards an "end" in the "Omega Point" of "God" seems too much of a superimposition of older religious ideas onto scientific fact, rather like trying to bang the puzzle pieces into place by force. We need to recognize the unknowable and uncertain aspects of our "future development" and embrace, I think, the unfolding nature of our biological, cultural and spiritual evolution. God experienced as "being" or "ground of being" cannot at the same time be the divine architect who "has it all worked out in advance." God, the ground of being, goes with us on the journey and is both us and the journey. As such, there is no predetermined destination at which we may someday arrive. This sort of "open-ended" spirituality is more in keeping with the realities of how creation/evolution have unfolded thus far, I think. It can look back to the past without a need to "reinvent" or fictionalize where we have been in order to freeze it into an orthodox framework, and it can be open to new change and development about where we are going in the future. To see all religious knowledge as present, experiential and provisional would rescue us from the "orthodoxy" wars that are consuming Christianity from the inside out as well as the outside in. We can find God less in our assent to "orthodox beliefs" than in our openness to the changing winds of "the spirit" in the process of our unfolding cultural and religious awareness.
To some, this may seem just too much, too frightening, too prone to "error" or "whim." I would counter, however, that, if we persist in trying to "hold progress back" we will likely destroy that very thing that we are trying most to preserve. Bishop Spong has written that "religious concepts become fragile indeed when education renders them no longer believable." A release of our religious spirit to allow it to move forward again will inevitably result in change, but it will not necessarily result in the complete abandonment of our past. Again from Bishop Spong, "To walk the Christ-path will take us beyond theism, but not beyond God; beyond incarnation, but not beyond discovering the divine at the heart of the human, beyond the death of every particular living thing, but not beyond meaning and purpose." Do we have the courage to go forward, or we will fragment into those who survive as curators of the religious museum and seculars who find religious experience and belief simply too challenging?
Posts
