Creationism is a hot button topic in the US. It is a battleground issue in school boards, churches, and politics. A recent Gallup Poll shows that 40% of Americans believe in creationism. That’s an astonishing number when you consider that the facts on the ground overwhelmingly demonstrate the truth of evolution. Yes – this OC/IC believer, theologian, and bishop rejects creationism in its entirety. There – I said it (grin).

What was not entirely surprising is the breakdown – people with higher education were more than likely to reject creationism, or believe in some form of theistic-evolotion (i.e. that evolution is fact, but that God had a hand in it). What was really curious to me – looking at the table is that the higher the degree level the more eductated people accepted theistic-evolution. Whereas folks who had a BA – when compared to the other categories (i.e. creationism, evolution, or theistic-evolution) were hovering around 30% across the board. So what’s the difference between having a BA and having an MA or PhD that causes that rather hefty shift? Is is simply life experience, and age, or is it something about learning to think in nuances and grey rather than something else, something more . . . . direct?

Then you get to the breakdown based on church attendance – and here’s where it gets really interesting. People who seldom attend church break down relatively evently (again hovering around 30%) across the board for the three categories. Whereas those who attend fairly regularly its pretty close to an even split with only 9% believing evolution happened with no involvement from the Divine. For those who attend church weekly however, the number of respondants who accept unvarnished creationishm is 60%.

Why? And does this figure represnt the bulk of the “uneducated” respondants? If so is the local church their only source for intellectual stimulation? And if that’s true how else are their clergy failing them? Jesus’ teaching does not encourage us to become mindless automotons – indeed his life example is the exact opposite – THINK and think hard, question the convention, expect a bit more depth.

In my mind – a more interesting point is – does it matter, does it really have an impact on one’s faith if one were to say that evolution happened? I believe I have heard one argument that suggests that for a fundamentalist to say that evolution and not creationism is the accepted “teaching” that it means the Bible is a lie, and therefore God is a lie. Oh my! What a narrow view of God you have!

There is a suggestion in this that creationism vs. evolution is the foundation point of faith – that one “believes in” creationism, or one “believes in” evolution . . . the problem is you cannot “believe in” science. Science is nothing more than a collection of facts. It is interesting, and it provides an understanding for the world around us – but it does not inspire some of the more etherial thinking that we humans do. One can certainly accept the facts of science, but one has faith in God – these are two very different activities, which sometimes inform one another, but in the end have totally different functions in our lives.

I’ve always been fascinated by the tension between science and religion. I don’t know what it is about this subject that peaks my curiosity so. Perhaps because I don’t see any tension between them and so I feel that I need to understand why others do. Perhaps because I can glimpse some aspects of the key moments when the two were struggling to assert themselves, or even redefine themselves with respect to the other.

Last night I watched The End of God? A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion on BBC (you can watch the episode here until 1 Oct, there is also a permanent summary/essay by the presenter Dr. Thomas Dixon here).

One element of the interaction between the two subjects that puzzles me is the claim, and indeed for some, the belief that religion – and in our particular case, Christianity – provides all the information we need about the natural world. That is to say that the Bible is a user’s manual for planet earth, and from it we obtain “true” knowledge.

For me my faith has nothing to do with the acquisition of knowledge, or facts, at least not in the same way one does research in genetics to understant the genome, and how genes (and their aberrations) effect living organisms. I’ve always approached the faith as a relationship – it is fluid, it is enhancing, it is challenging, it is even enlightening, but it is not an encyclopedic source of “facts” about the world around me. Just as my relationship with my friends, and family is not a source of knowledge about genetics (well – in my case it can be since my other half is a geneticist – grin).

One cannot have a relationship with science. Science will not respond to you, it does not “know” you. And because one cannot have a “relationship” with science, it is not possible to “believe in” science. Thus, to say “I believe in science” is to posit a consciousness, or a relationship that simply cannot be. Science is about the investigation of the natural world – science (real science, not pseudo-science) is “fact”. Science does not, cannot delve into philosophy, meaning, value, because when it does it loses its impartiality, and no longer expresses, or discovers fact.

I guess then, that it is here where my understanding of the faith, and the tradition in which I find myself (OC/IC) is different from say – a biblical literalist who sees the bible as the black and white, beginning and end of “knowledge” and “truth” via revelation. The problem for me, here is that this perspective over-simplifies the scriptures – it smoothes over the rough patches, and turns the bible into an encyclopedia, a manual, a task master. It is none of these things. Moreover, it ignores the grace of free will, and free enquiry that is an essential element of our being human. It seems to me then, that fundamentalism, literalism, de-values the richness of scripture, and degrades the dignity of humanity. Two things I cannot imagine are true to the Christian faith.

“Liberal” churches may be sabotaging themselves by reducing the commitment of their members – so suggests a recent report in New Scientist. The persecution of early Christians may have had a dramatic effect on the spread of Christianity because the sacrifices of martyrs and confessors instilled in others the idea of sincerity: “few would willingly give their life for an ideal they did not believe in”.

Once people believe they are more likely to undertake or endure similar displays of committment. Through a mathematical model, the study suggests that this becomes a “self-reinforcing loop” enabling the belief system to persist over time.

The suggestion is that communities that expect a higher level of committment as displayed through particular behaviour endure and grow whereas those communities which do not eventually dissipate. Comparing liberal Protestant churches and fundamentalist Protestant churches appears to prove the point.

How is this relevant to OC/IC communities?

I dare say that today there might be a few confessors out there, but not too many martyrs. So lets look at the effects of more down to earth forms of “costly sacrifices”.

The study suggests that acts of sacrifice, or self-denial/renunciation by religious leaders has a stronger overall impact on the commitment of others. So, how many of our OC/IC leaders and clergy are regularly participating in the life and community of other churches? From the stand point of a visitor/observer/participant – if my local indie bishop, priest or lay leader is heavily involved in another tradition then this indie thing must not be worth my own personal investment.

This opens the door to the next question, assume our leaders are setting the example, are we doing enough to cultivate, and encourage “membership” through the right of chrismation? That is to say – if our leaders have “sacrificed” the (false) safety net of another church, then are we also encouraging the same within the community as a whole? In short are we actively giving people a reason to give a confident “yes” to the OC/IC way of life, and be willing to whole heartedly throw in their lot with us?

Keeping in mind the above two points, how might the common practice of open communion affect committment to, identification with our OC/IC communities?

Finally, in our history can we point to as an exemplar of commitment to the OC/IC ideal? I can think of a few, such as Varlet and Ofiesh, how about you?