[Dialogue] From the bishop-pessimistic prognostication

[kroegerd@aol.com]

July 27, 2005
A New Dark Age Begins 

Several years ago, in a column about the harassment, removal and silencing of Roman Catholic scholars like Hans Kung, Leonardo Boff, Charles Curran and Edward Schillebeeckx by that church, I referred to the leader of this "Inquisitional" mentality, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as "the pit bull of the Vatican." Little did I realize that this church's leadership would elect this man Pope and install him as Benedict XVI. That action sent a signal throughout the world that we are entering a new "Dark Age." On many fronts this mentality, which has been building inside religion for at least forty years, has finally broken into our full awareness. 
We saw it in a document published a few years ago, written by the same Cardinal Ratzinger, in which the Vatican declared there to be only one true religion, namely Christianity, and only one true expression of Christianity, namely the Roman Catholic Church. The gentle Pope John XXIII (1958-1963), who opened that church to the accents of the 20th Century, must have turned in his grave. Ratzinger's document went on to counsel Roman Catholic ecumenical representatives never to refer to other Christian bodies as "sister" churches for that implied some tacit recognition of their legitimacy. This attitude, the hallmark of authoritarian anti-intellectualism that historically has produced religious wars and persecution, is now installed in the Papacy itself. It signals the dimming of reason and suggests that Catholic Christianity has returned to the mindset of the Inquisition. 
Rome is not alone. A Danish Lutheran bishop has recently removed one of its most creative clergy, Pastor Thorkild Grosboell, from his parish near Copenhagen by charging him with heresy. To charge one with heresy implies that the charging authority possesses the truth of God. Another Danish bishop, seeing this as a public relations disaster, sought to smooth over the conflict by offering Pastor Grosboell another chance to resume his ministry, but only after a public interrogation in which the bishop read parts of the Creed developed in the fourth century and demanded that Pastor Grosboell declare, with a "yes" or "no" answer that he believes that these words have captured the eternal truth of God. That is "Dark Age" theology. 
We see the same mentality almost every day when various evangelical spokespersons, such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or R. Albert Mohler go on national television to express their opinion that the words of Scripture are the inerrant word of God. Their comments are frequently in the service of opposing evolution. All of these gentlemen either ignore the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship or they are not aware of it. Their rhetoric does little more than give aid and comfort to uninformed members of local school boards in the less well educated and less cosmopolitan parts of our nation who thrive on a lack of knowledge and who want to carry us back intellectually to the 1920's, so that once again we might put learning on trial and convict it as we did in the Scopes Trial in Tennessee. One wonders when the historicity of Adam and Eve might begin to be defended again by the current ecclesiastical mentality. The Bible is so often used to perfume both ignorance and prejudice. 
If one had any doubt about this developing religious darkness, an op-ed piece that appeared on July 7, 2005 in the New York Times removed any lingering questions. This article, written by the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schoenborn, suggested that evolution was "not compatible with Catholic doctrine." This author, no secondary figure in the Roman Catholic Church, served as the editor of the official 1992 Catechism of that Church. Earlier in his career this man had actually defended the literal historicity of the Book of Genesis. Adam and Eve here we come! Though the Vatican did not officially authorize this editorial, it is well known that Cardinal Schoenborn and Benedict XVI are very close friends and in that Church such events are never unplanned or accidental. 
Cardinal Schoenborn's argument was intriguing as he first tried to undermine John Paul II's words spoken in 1996 that "Evolution is more than a theory." Secondly, he sought to drive a wedge between what he called the Theory of Evolution articulated by Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution that is held by those he called "The Neo-Darwinians." According to the Cardinal, the distinction was that evolution "in the sense of a common ancestry might be true," but evolution as "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection is not." Perhaps he does not recognize that the full title of Charles Darwin's 1859 book was "The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection." The implication was that anything that disagrees with or challenges the true faith of the Catholic Church could not be truth ipso facto. That is the typical claim found in all imperialistic religious systems. Clearly an alliance is emerging between the Vatican and the "creationist" wing of Protestant fundamentalism. 
Evolution, let it be said clearly, is no longer a debatable theory. DNA evidence has made it very clear that all of life is deeply and historically interconnected. Medical science assumes the truth of evolution in all that it does. The vast majority of the scientific world no longer salutes the primitive idea that a supernatural deity who lives above the sky has guided evolution to the glorious end of humankind and that it will go no further. Yet frightened religious leaders now interpret that to be an assault on their image of God. These leaders are unable or unwilling to embrace the fact that God for most Christians is a human creation that got frozen in a pre-modern form. The religious anxiety of our day stems from the fact that this definition of God is dying. Conservative Roman Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants appear to know that in the depths of their souls and so they seek to use authority in the task of divine artificial respiration. Former Christians also appear to know that much more consciously. That is why the fastest growing religious movement in the western world is the Church Alumni Association. 
The crisis to which these data point is real. I, for one, am not interested in being a part of a Christian Church that has to defend its faith against the insights of new knowledge. Any God who has to be protected from new truth cannot possibly be God. If the only alternative to the traditional view of God, that portrayed the deity as a supernatural theistic Being who invades the world periodically in miraculous ways to accomplish the divine purpose, is to say that there is no God, then I find that a healthier solution. That, however, is not the only alternative. I seek the God beyond the gods of men and women, beyond the gods of church and religious systems. I seek the God who is not bound by those antiquated creeds and dogmas that were hammered out in a world that no longer exists. If Cardinal Schoenborn wants to assert that anything that conflicts with Catholic doctrine cannot be true, or if Protestants insist that all truth is ultimately defined by the inerrant words of a 3000 year old book, then we are back to the time when the Christian Church condemned Galileo. Christianity lost that battle and it will lose this one as it marches headlong into the marginalized existence that leads to an inevitable death. 
What the fundamentalists, both Catholic and Protestant, do not appear to embrace is that evolution by natural selection is only the tip of the iceberg that threatens their narrowly defined religious system. Once the Darwinian principle of evolving life is fully understood, the old idea of an original creation that is both good and finished is doomed. The post-Darwinian scientific world almost unanimously views creation as an ongoing, unfinished process. Therefore the suggestion that there ever was a "fall into sin," becomes nonsense, and the doctrine of 'original sin' collapses. The story of Jesus as God's invasion of the world to rescue us from this fall becomes inoperative. One cannot fall from a perfection one never had. One cannot be rescued from a fall that never happened. One cannot be restored to a status one has never possessed. Inevitably, as this theological house of cards falls, we become aware that the traditional way of understanding baptism as the washing away the sin of the fall, or the Eucharist as a reenactment of the moment when the divine rescue was accomplished on the cross also become meaningless. The idea that salvation was accomplished in the shedding of Jesus' blood becomes barbaric. Neither Cardinal Schoenborn nor the Protestant "creationists" appear to understand any of these implications in their shallow analysis of Darwinian thought. It is a sad day for enlightened people when the leaders of major parts of the Christian Church seek to reassert Catholic authority or scriptural certainty by herding us back into the ignorance of yesterday. 
The Christian Church has a choice to make. It will either engage the thought of the contemporary world or it will die. The early signs are that this Pope and the Church he represents have decided to cast their lot with the mindless fundamentalism, which is today the public voice of Protestant Christianity. This means that they are willing to allow their children to be shielded from truth and insight because the God they worship is simply too small to be God for the 21st century. A Christian Church ushering in a new Dark Age has no future. 
This frightening specter becomes very real when we recognize that this is the kind of Christianity encouraged by members of the Bush administration. They too are engaged in an assault on both intelligence and learning. They deny global warming, they oppose stem cell research, they are closed-mindedness about end of life issues, they express uninformed negativity about homosexual persons and they attempt to blur the line between church and state. 
The clouds are darkening. The fundamentalists are now allied with the Vatican and the present administration has given this mentality credibility by embracing it. Is it any wonder that I fear for the Christianity that has long nurtured me and for the country that I love. 
- John Shelby Spong
Question and Answer
With John Shelby Spong
To my readers: 
This week, in place of the Question and Answer feature of this column, I am pleased to turn this space over to some of you by printing excerpts from the incredible volume of mail I received in response to guest columnist Dr. James Hecht's piece on the struggle in the Middle East to find peace, entitled "Brokering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". That column ran on May 18th, 2005, and if you missed it or want to read it again, subscribers may do so by visiting http://www.bishopspong.com and clicking the "Log In" tab. Peace in the Middle East is still elusive, but until it is found peace in the world will remain an unfulfilled dream. Your comments were worth sharing broadly. John Shelby Spong 
  
Daryl Peter writes:
"I think there is one thing lacking in Dr. Hecht's argument. Did the Palestinians aid and abet those who attempted to drive the Jews into the sea? I think the answer is yes. What then should be their reward for such treachery? The Arab world could easily have assimilated the displaced Palestinians and refused. Why? It seems to me there are quite a few nations in the Middle East who come to the table with unclean hands not just Jews and Americans. Until the entire Arab world and especially the U.N. agree this is a real mess and no one is guiltless can the problem begin to be resolved." 
Martin Crim writes:
"The only element Dr. Hecht left out of the equation is that evangelical Christians form a strong pro-Israel lobby that is actually more extreme than AIPAC. Because they see the creation of the modern nation of Israel as fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, they are opposed to any steps toward peace with the Palestinians if that would require giving up "Judea and Samaria" as they call it." 
  
Sheldon Kronfeld of San Diego writes:
"Without hesitation I agree with Dr. Hecht that the plight of the Palestinians is one of misery, suffering, subjugation and humiliation. I have a concern about his conclusion about where the responsibility for this unfortunate situation lies. Nowhere does Dr. Hecht indicate that he conferred with Israelis at all. Permit me to make mention a few of the hopes that Israel has had with respect to its Arab Palestinian neighbors. 
"We appeal.to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions." 
"The State of Israel will foster the development of the country for all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of religion, race, of sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions." 
The foregoing is taken from the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948. 
  
Frank Glyn-Jones writes:
"An excellent article by Dr. Hecht. Hatred is growing all the time among both the Israelis and the Americans. I can't see any hope of the Israelis withdrawing from the settlements or of reverting to 1967 boundaries. Nor can I see the USA and President Bush supporting such a move. In fact I can see many Israelis resisting the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Dr. Hecht does not mention the two million Palestinian refugees. And there are millions of Americans who belong to the religious right who also believe the Bible says that Israel should occupy Judea. "The problem is that all the Arab states are weak economically. They must adopt all the tenets of capitalism, encourage inward investment, approve interest, give rights to women, curb the power of the mullahs and either modernize the Islamic faith or change it. This is massive step. Perhaps one Arab nation can take a lead. But unless they make a move in that direction, they will continue to be humiliated and weak." 
  
Jean Palmer from Daphne, Alabama writes:
"After reading Dr. Hecht's column I recalled my thoughts over the years about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, wondering why our United States government has always supported the Israeli side and seemingly neglected the Palestinians. My thoughts centered on our collective guilt over disbelieving the tragic Holocaust for so long. When the ship carrying refugees arrived on our shores during FDR's presidency and was forced to turn back to Europe, it caused me to gasp! How on earth could our country turn away refugees? Well, it seems we did and this has perhaps caused us to overcompensate on the Israeli side today. Having lived to the ripe old age of 71, I now know how guilt can cause one to do a 180-degree turnaround in some cases. I have asked myself why I was not sensitive to the issues of growing up in the segregated south all those years. Well, I was a child, then a teenager, then a nursing student, then a wife and a mother.too busy to think how others were faring, in particular my African American brothers and sisters. Today, I embrace these same brothers and sisters wherever I am in church, social events, or anywhere else. Attempting atonement is a feeble attempt on my part but it seems to be the best I can do. I had been hoping that after 9/11 our government would stop, think and want to know why the terrorists hated us so much and how we might listen to their side of "the argument." So, what did President Bush and his administration do? They began a war they thought we could easily win; evidently thinking about how to turn the tide of Muslim hate was never a consideration. When I think of all the Iraqi people and our loyal military personnel who have been killed, it makes me nauseated!" 
  
Jim High from Tupelo, Miss, writes:
"Some very interesting and informative information was contained in Dr. Hecht's column, things that I did not know were happening in this area of the world. Getting to the bottom of things is always important and only by being on the ground in that place of conflict would you come to know the actual details and truth of the situation. I appreciate this new insight. 
However, it seems to me that this problem has no real solution and is getting worse, not better, over time. I do not agree that money, which Dr. Hecht proposes, is going to solve this religious problem. Both sides have reasons to believe that they are right and both sides believe that "God is on their side," whatever that means. Two vastly different peoples cannot occupy the same ground. Even the United States cannot play King Solomon and propose cutting this baby in half. 
So what can be done? Only a complete change in the way Arabs, Jews and Christians view God and each other will bring peace to the Middle East and to the rest of the world. Do I think that will happen? Probably not until we reach some other inhabited planet in the distant future, and upon arriving inquire about their God and get the response, "Who?". None of us living today will be around to see that and probably our civilization will not last that long anyway. And, if our world does survive until then, the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of that day will just try to convert them. The strongest evidence that the God most people say they believe in does not really exist is all the wars and conflicts fought in the name of religion. Why would the God they believe in allow this? 
"The God I believe in is in me and it fills me love, peace and acceptance for every other thing in God's creation, living or physical. Jesus, whoever he was, understood and acted on that belief just as I try to do. If everyone does that, all problems of every kind would end and we would truly have the "Kingdom of God" on earth today." 
  
Sam Taylor, via the Internet, writes:
I appreciate Dr. Hecht's viewpoints and would like to find a way for him to achieve broader readership. However, Dr. Hecht along with many others, assigns a galactic importance to the Israel-Palestine issue that seems to require more perspective than is deserved. Of a human population of 6.2 billion, those people who identify themselves as Jews make up only 14 million. Israel has a population of only 4 million, Palestine a little more. In short, Dr. Hecht and many, many others are focusing attention on less that ½ of one percent of the human population of our planet as if these are somehow more deserving of our attention than another two or three billion whose plight is at least as desperate. I would maintain that this is a latent Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Mormon, etc. bias that creates this obvious imbalance. I do not think that Dr. Hecht would subscribe to some notion that declared all the people who were not included in this biased sample as somehow less than human and thus not deserving our attention. But even with this biased population, the absolute numbers of those receiving the focus are small. How can he justify this incredible statistical imbalance? 
"I am quite sympathetic to the people who suffer from the mess that supposedly civilized nations have made (or have allowed to be made) in this tiny corner of the world. However, I am even more sympathetic to the enormous multiples of this small sample who continue to be neglected at the expense of these, if you will pardon the term, "chosen" few. As a putative Christian, who has taken seriously the leavening influence of humanism, how does Dr. Hecht justify this dichotomy?"