How
well do you know what you know? I admit
that is a very vague question. Certainly
there are things that we know and we know them very well. You know without any doubt whatsoever that if
you put your hand on a hot stove you will be injured. And there are also lots of things that we
know we don’t know well at all. We know
that sunlight provides the energy that plants need to grow but unless we are
biologists we probably can’t describe the chemical processes of photosynthesis
with any detail. Most of us, by some mix
of education and experience, are highly skilled and experts in some things but
we rely on the expertise of others in order to make our modern lives work.
When
we interact with the world around us we have general knowledge of a lot of
things that we think we know – so does everyone else around us, and it works
pretty well. I’m going to call that
general knowledge “common sense.” It’s a
logical, constructive, reasonably disciplined way of approaching things.
The
problem is, how much to we really know?
And do we, along with everyone around us, have common assumptions that
may not be true; however, because we all have that common assumption we are
able to make it appear true for us?
I
know that is a mind twister of a statement so let me explain. The modern western world is built largely on
a mix of Christian theology and Greek philosophy. There are fundamental assumptions that are
made and then lived into. These
assumptions aren’t necessarily right or wrong, but we need to recognize them as
the assumptions that they are. If you’ve
ever done a lot of international traveling, especially into Africa and southern
Asia, you know that societies there run under vastly different philosophies
from our own.
In
his book, A Reasonable Faith, theologian and speaker Tony Campolo points
out that most modern western thinkers accept Darwin’s theory of evolution as a
scientific fact. Life has become more
and more complex and species have evolved into higher and higher forms. Species evolve to flourish and survive in the
environment in which they find themselves.
Those individuals of a species whose genetic characteristics enable them
to flourish best pass on their genetics to future generations. And conversely, those whose genetics aren’t
well suited to the environment die out over time. While there are genetic variations among all
species, random genetic mutations happen all the time, and some of those
mutations can create new characteristics that are beneficial. On the whole we call it “survival of the
fittest.”
There
are countless research studies and published results that prove these ideas of
the 19th century biologist Charles Darwin to be true. To go against them is to be considered a
ignoramus.
But,
as Campolo points out, are they true?
I’m
not suggesting that people should jump into the camp of biblical
literalism. That would be both foolish
and improper Bible interpretation. But
how much do we really know about evolutionary theory and how much do we just
think we know because others have told us?
Campolo
points out that there were numerous theories of evolution floating around in
the 19th century. Darwin’s
became the dominant one in the western world.
He suggests Darwin’s became the dominant one because it indeed does fit observable
data, but also because the idea of survival of the fittest fit well into the
background societal assumptions based on Greek philosophy.
By
contrast consider the evolutionary theory of French naturalist, Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck 1744-1829. His work predates Darwin’s
by some decades. Lamark’s thoughts
aren’t so much on survival of the fittest, but on survival of those species
which show the greatest degree of cooperation among the members of a species. Think community: ants, bees, pack and herd
animals; and of course, humans.
Think
about it, what makes humans so successful as a species is not survival of the
fittest. It is cooperation on a scale no
species has ever had. As Campolo points
out, survival of the fittest leads to racism in countless forms; not to mention
genocide campaigns – think WW2 Germany. Do
you see how we can use a philosophical framework to shape and apply science?
How
would our society be different if instead of living by survival of the fittest
we lived by survival of the most cooperative and integrated? What if instead of focusing on individual
lives we focused on ever greater cooperation and community?
This
is a very long introduction to getting into the prophet Haggai. Haggai is a concise book, and unlike most of
the writings of the Bible we can date it precisely. It is the year 520 B.C.E. The Persians have conquered the Babylonians
who had destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE.
The Jews who had been hauled into exile in Babylon by the Babylonians
had been freed and allowed to return home some 16 years earlier. They were free to rebuild Jerusalem and its
temple.
Except
that wasn’t happening.
While
some Jews did decide to stay in Babylon – life was easier there after all –
some did decide to return. They built
houses for themselves and started to rebuild their lives. However, work on the temple was happening in
fits and starts, and was basically going nowhere. Haggai 1, which we had as our first reading,
is a message from God to the returned exiles that they had their priorities all
wrong. They were living as individuals,
trying to build their own wealth, rather than working together to rebuild the
temple to God’s glory. God tells them
their work will not flourish until they get their priorities straight.
Perhaps
in our scientifically critical minds we may question whether God really did
cause their crops to be lackluster and their efforts to fail because they
didn’t focus on the temple. But if the
theories of Lamark are correct, until they worked cooperatively they would not
flourish. They needed to first build
that which would give them a common identity, a sense of community, a center of
faith – the temple – before they could do anything else.
Prophets
like Haggai and Zechariah (who we will look at next week) along with leaders
like Ezra and Nehemiah (who also have books of the Bible written by/for them)
pushed hard to get the temple rebuilt.
And indeed Jewish society did not begin to flourish until the temple was
rebuilt.
I
said earlier that modern western society is built on a mix of Christian
theology and Greek philosophy. I believe
that is indeed the case. But we have to
remember that in many places the Bible stands against Greek philosophy. Greek culture led to all sorts of abuses and
distortions. It led to individualism and
hierarchies which put people determined by society to be less able people
permanently on the bottom while elevating others to the top. Christianity rejected that vehemently. Insisting instead that all are made in the
image of God. All are sinners and fall
short of that. All are equally in need
of God’s grace. All have an essential
role to play. We see that in what we
read from Paul in our second Bible reading.
I’m
no expert on the theories of Lamark. I
know enough of them to know that in time they have been shown to have some
scientific flaws. But on the whole, I
believe his theories reflect a much more Christian understanding of the
ordering of life than do Darwin’s.
Christian
leaders have long criticized our society’s love of rugged individuality. Yes, we have to be strong as
individuals. But it is cooperation that
makes things happen.
When
I am in a hospital praying for someone about to have surgery I do not pray for
God to bring about a miracle. Yes, I
certainly want God to watch over that person during the hours ahead. But I am more interested in God guiding the
hands of the surgeon, giving wisdom to the anesthesiologist, directing the
alertness of the assistants, attendants, and nurses. Thanking God for the people who made the
machines and the medicines. And even
praying for the janitors who keep the operating room surgically clean. If anyone, anyone, in that system
messes up the results can be disastrous.
While the surgeon is the star, he or she is useless without a complex
interconnected community.
We
are individually known by God. But we
are collectively God’s people. Haggai
called on the people of his day to build the temple. They should make it a priority. In so doing they would build much more than a
building. They would build a
community. The community is what would
make each of them strong. The same goes
for our lives centuries later in a different nation and a different part of the
world. Those who cooperate and work
together thrive. Those who live to
themselves die out.
No comments:
Post a Comment