An abortive discussion continued...

As I said in the previous post, the central issue for me in the abortion debate is whether embryos are really human or not; all the other issues are contingent on our answer to this question. But still there are a number of other questions that it's important to think about, starting with...

Whose rights are more important - embryo's or mother's?

Of course, if our answer to the primary question is that an embryo isn't a person, then it's not a 'who' at all and clearly the mother's rights come first. It's hard to argue that a tiny clump of cells that isn't really a human has any rights at all. However, if we believe that an embryo is human, then the situation changes radically.

Those in favour of abortion argue that a woman always has the right to choose what she does with her body and whether she wishes to be a mother or not. After all, pregnancy is no easy ride for 9 months, giving birth is about the most physically painful and draining experience it's possible to go through, and becoming a mother has a tremendous impact on a woman's whole life and career from that point onwards. I do therefore have great sympathy with those who feel a woman should be able to choose whether she is ready to become a mother.

Those opposed to abortion start from the position that an embryo (or 'unborn baby' as they prefer to call it) is definitely a human, and they argue that the rights of this developing human must be at least as important as those of the mother. Secondly they argue that the right to life (or the right not to be deprived of life) is a more important and fundamental right than the rights to quality of life, to pursue a career, not to go through the pain of pregnancy and childbirth etc. Thirdly they argue that the rights of a weaker person, one not able to speak for or defend themselves, must be upheld more strongly than those of the stronger; the rights of a child must be defended more strongly than those of an adult, and the rights of a baby (or in this case embryo) must be defended even more strongly still. I find I have great sympathy for these views as well.

Finally and more controversially, some pro-lifers argue that the woman's right to choose (except of course in cases such as rape) applies at the point of choosing to consent to unprotected sex. They argue that once she has become pregnant, she has already made her choice, or forfeited the right to choose. I'm not sure I would go this far. It does feel unfair to me that one who should pay for the adults' mistake (often the man's more than the woman's) should be the one who was totally innocent of any fault or choice in the matter. But then this of course applies both whether the embryo is aborted or ultimately born into a family that does not want it.

What are the psychological and physical impacts of abortion?

I'm thinking primarily here of the mother, but of course there are also potential impacts on the father, the family, the medical staff involved in the procedure, etc. The physical impact on the foetus of course is fairly obvious.

I don't have evidence at my fingertips to do more than raise this as a question. Pro-choicers argue that the physical and emotional impacts of abortion are minimal, and that abortion frees a woman to follow the path she really wants to. Pro-lifers argue that the effect of abortion can be traumatic both physically and emotionally, and also that some women feel pressured into abortions that they afterwards wish they had not had. I think a lot probably depends on the individual personality and beliefs of the person in question, and whether deep down they feel that abortion is wrong or not. Again, the question of whether you see the foetus as human or not, as a baby or as a blob of cells, surely makes a crucial difference to how you feel about it.

What are the other options?

I said earlier that giving birth and becoming a parent is no easy option, and abortion may seem like the only way out of a frightening, difficult, uncertain and unchosen future. Those who still choose to go ahead with becoming parents despite the difficulties need and deserve support, help and encouragement.

There is of course one other option, at least in many cases, and that is to put the baby up for adoption. Of course, pregnancy and childbirth still have to be got through, which I'm not pretending is easy, even with the help of epidurals and elective caesarians for the birth. And some would argue that the psychological impact of giving up your baby to other parents may be almost as great as those related to having an abortion. Nonetheless, adoption does at least give the child the chance of a life while allowing the birth mother to return fairly quickly to her chosen life and career.

There but for the grace of God

I've raised and explored a number of questions which I think are crucial to the abortion debate, but I can only answer them for myself, not for anyone else.

My own view is still that a human embryo is - and certainly will ultimately be - a human being, a person, and therefore (in my view) that under most circumstances it is not anyone's right to decide that it will not be. I also more cautiously believe that in most cases an embryo's right to life does trump the mother's right to choose; and I suspect (but lack evidence to prove) that the psychological impacts of abortion are generally worse than those of other options, such as putting the baby up for adoption.

However, I'm not writing this to judge or condemn those who view things differently or in particular those who have chosen differently, often under incredibly difficult circumstances. There but for the grace of God go any of us. Sorry if that sounds patronising.

A couple of quick final points. Of course there are always exceptional cases, particularly where the mother's life is in danger. And despite my views I don't believe that criminalisation - particularly of the mother - is anything but counter-productive. Instead I would ask for full and fair presentation of all available options, better education and understanding of both the scientific and ethical issues and of the full impacts and implications of the various options, and better support for adoption.

Right, quick, time for a nice safe topic - the theology of flower-arranging or bird-watching or something.

An abortive discussion

Okay, deep breath... against all better judgement I'm poking my nose into the hornets' nest of arguably the most sensitive and emotive of all subjects.

The Marie Stopes TV ad

I watched the Marie Stopes TV advert last night. Nothing much in itself - three different women late with their periods, and background piano music in a minor key. The only spoken words in the ad are: 'If you're late for your period, you could be pregnant. If you're pregnant and not sure what to do, Marie Stopes International can help.'

Nothing very controversial in that... except that of course we all know that the unspecified help that Marie Stopes clinics offer is primarily abortion - or termination of unwanted pregnancies if you prefer.

Confessions and apologies

I must here confess - and I do see it as a confession - that I've for a long time leant strongly towards the pro-life side of the debate, and that's still where my natural sympathies lie. This doesn't sit comfortably with my otherwise left-wing and liberal inclinations, but there it is. However, I'm not seeking to use this blog as a soapbox, or a trench from which to snipe at those who see things differently. I just want to explore and try to understand a bit better the issues around this highly complex and emotive subject, hoping if possible to generate more light than heat.

I do also realise that it's all too easy for me as a man to theorise about matters which will never directly affect me - I will never have to decide whether to have an abortion; I will never have to go through the difficulties of pregnancy and the pains of childbirth. So I apologise if I seem to be callous or self-righteous in treating very theoretically what are for many deeply personal and painful issues.

For me, the debate revolves around a number of questions, which I'll have to deal with in separate posts, starting with:

Is an embryo a human being?

The trouble is, science cannot provide us with a definitive answer to the question

Or to put it another way, when does an embryo become a human being? To me this is the crux of the whole matter. At some point between sperm fertilising egg and birth at about 40 weeks, we're dealing not with a clump of cells but a human being. But at what point, and how do we decide? Is it when the embryo develops recognisable features, or when it is able to feel pain, or when its brain has reached a certain stage of development? Is it when the baby becomes 'viable', i.e. would have a chance of survival outside the womb, which of course depends largely on the current state of medical technology? Or is an embryo actually a developing human being from the moment of conception?

The trouble is, science cannot provide us with a definitive answer to the question, and probably never will be able to. How we define what is and is not a human being- a person - may not even be a scientific question, but a sociological, cultural, or theological one. Yet we must decide, for the whole ethicality and morality of abortion centres on this.

In most cultures and ethical systems, deliberately killing a human being (except in war or capital punishment) is viewed as murder and therefore as wrong and unlawful. Therefore if an embryo is a human being at the time of an abortion, we have a problem, for it is then hard to see how termination is ethically distinct from infanticide. However, if the embryo is not truly human, the situation is ethically very different.

To pose it as a situational ethics question, to end the life of a baby after it has been born is (I believe) generally seen as unacceptable; but at what (if any) point before birth does it become acceptable, and on what scientific, moral or other grounds?

I think the answer to all these questions has to be that we honestly don't know. If we don't know, then my own view is that - for our own sake if no-one else's - we must err on the side of not committing what could be a grave moral offence. Others will have good reasons to disagree.

even if an embryo is not yet a person, it will one day become one

Perhaps the main difficulty for me is that even if an embryo is not yet a human being, not yet a person, if it survives it will certainly one day become one. What may only be an embryo today will before long be a baby, a child, an adult. And though there are many people I sometimes feel I could cheerfully murder, there aren't many people who I would seriously say should never have been born. Yet to opt for an abortion is effectively to say this; to make the decision that this person who would otherwise one day be a you or a me, a sibling or a friend, an Aunt Hilda or a Fred the fishmonger or whoever else, should not - will not - be. And I'm not convinced that I have, or anyone else has, the right to make such a decision.

This is my own view - if you see it differently, I'm not trying to tell you what to think.

Next post - whose rights are more important, and what are the psychological and physical impacts of abortion on the mother?

Redefining sin

Now that really does sound like I've lost it. I'll just redefine sin to suit myself shall I? Greed, pride, lust, sloth, theft - all fine now. Mind you, if you read my recent post in defence of illegal downloading you might think that's exactly what I've done.

With any luck this will be the last in the redefining series... sighs of relief all round...

10. Sin 

Evangelical definition: Sin is primarily a moral failure or offence against God's perfect law. It arouses God's anger and separates us from him, as no unclean thing can dwell in his presence; and only Jesus' sacrifice can wash away sin.  We are all born into a state of sinfulness resulting from the wilful disobedience of Adam, and until we accept Christ's salvation we cannot help but follow our fleshly inclinations which lead us to sin. In evangelical circles, particular emphasis is often placed on sins of sexual immorality (lust, fornication, adultery, homosexuality); rage, drunkenness, rebellion and witchcraft also rate highly, and failure to hold correct doctrines is often effectively treated as sin.

Re-definition: Sin is fundamentally an offence against love (the supreme law), against personality (the supreme reality) and against relationship (the expression and context of love and personality). Sin depersonalises and dehumanises; it mars and spoils Christ's image in ourselves and others. Sin is a falling-short of our true original nature as image-bearers and incarnations (icons and sacraments) of Christ; it is a sickness, brokenness and lostness of our souls. Christ's perfect love covers our sin, heals and restores us and encourages us to offer forgiveness and healing to others.

11. Hell

Evangelical definition: Hell is a post-mortem place or state of eternal, inescapable conscious torment shut out from God's presence. All who do not accept Christ as Lord and Saviour in this life are destined for this fate. Hell is God's just punishment of the wicked according to his righteous wrath.

Re-definition: Hell is both the present and the post-mortem state of souls self-separated from the love, peace and forgiveness of God eternally held out to them. It is not necessarily an eternal and inescapable state, and nor is it the inevitable destination of those who have not in this life come to faith in Christ.

12. Atonement

Evangelical definition: Atonement is the means by which God cancels out our sins and makes us right with himself, lifting the sentence of eternal punishment in hell that hangs over us. Specifically, it refers to Christ's penal substitutionary sacrifice for us on the cross, in which he bore himself the punishment due for all of our sins, thus paying our debt and freeing us from their penalty (if we accept him as Saviour).

Re-definition: The atonement is the ultimate expression and act of love, in which Love offers its (or his) own self up to rejection, pain and death on behalf of us the beloved. In the atonement, Love takes on all our pains, sorrows, guilt, shame, fear, brokenness and isolation in order to redeem them, to heal and restore us to the fullness of love and relationship.

13. Salvation

Evangelical definition: Salvation - literally 'being saved' - is God's rescue of hell-bound sinners through the gospel of Christ's sacrifice. Salvation allows us to escape judgement and enter the Kingdom of Heaven by repenting of our sins and placing our faith in Christ.

Re-definition: Salvation is less about escaping hell or entering heaven, and more about the ongoing transformation and renewing of our lives, hearts and minds into Christlikeness by the work of the Holy Spirit.

*

...unfortunately, a bit like the list of 'what have the Romans ever done for us', the list of terms to be re-defined keeps on growing the more I think about it. What about prayer, discipleship, worship, fellowship? What about faith, hope and love? What about God himself, his sovereignty, his omnipotence and omniscience? And conversely, what about evil and the devil?

Oh well, they can all wait for another day. I've got a dishwasher to load.

Redefining the Gospel

Picking up from where Redefining salvation left off...

It's been one of those weeks when there are just too many news stories for a poor spare-time theology/ethics blogger to cover... and I've cleverly committed myself to a multi-post series on redefining Christianity. Synthetic life, the Marie Stopes TV ad and the conviction of two 10-year-old boys for attempted rape of an 8-year-old will just have to wait a few days. It's a good thing only my work colleagues are looking at this blog. Guys, I'd like some tea now please. There's nothing interesting for you here. Seriously. :-)

So, back to redefining evangelical faith and I think I'd got to no. 5 - the Larch... I mean the Gospel...

5. The Gospel

Evangelical definition: to evangelicals, the Gospel is the core of Christian faith and the key message to be conveyed in evangelism (q.v.). This message is that there is a righteous sovereign God, and that all people without exception are fallen sinners deserving his just wrath and incapable of saving themselves. The only way to escape an eternity of this wrath in hell (q.v.) is to accept the way of salvation (q.v.) that God has made for us through his only Son Jesus Christ, who bore our punishment and cancelled our sin-debt by dying in our place on the cross (see atonement, q.v.). If we repent of our sins and turn to Christ in faith, we can be saved. This gospel message of repentance and faith in Christ must be preached to all people, and must be accepted by them if they are to be 'saved'.

Re-definition: the Gospel is God's genuinely wonderful news of freedom, hope and life offered to all in Christ; his plan to restore, renew and redeem all creation through the resurrection of his Son, and to express his life, light and love through people and perhaps all creatures. It is the reaching out of God's overwhelming goodness and love, seeking out the lost, last and least. The gospel is a socially and spiritually transformative, liberating message of love to the loveless, welcome to the excluded, hope for the despairing; it has the redemptive power to bring life out of death, light out of darkness, good out of evil.

6. Evangelism

Evangelical definition: Evangelism is of central importance to evangelicals. It means preaching the Gospel (q.v., above); 'sharing Christ' with the lost in order to make new disciples; attempting to move people along the spiritual-awareness scale from -10 (no interest in God) to +10 (full disciples). Evangelical evangelism often involves bringing conversations round to Christ, often with the use of apologetics (the rational defence of the Christian faith). Formulaic methods and techniques of evangelism are also encouraged such as 'friendship evangelism', 'servant evangelism' and practising giving your own testimony (story of how you came to faith).

Re-definition: though evangelism is important and does involve sharing the gospel, this needs to be understood in much broader and less formulaic terms, and may well not involve preaching or apologetics. I'd suggest that evangelism can be seen as bringing what you genuinely have of Christ into the lives of those who do not know him, not by force or argument but as a natural and authentic part of who you are and of your relationship with them. It means engaging sacramentally and incarnationally with others as flawed and partial images of Christ ourselves, and also becoming aware of Christ's image in them. It therefore involves being as deeply as possible in Christ, as truly as possible oneself, and as engaged as possible with the reality of the other person. It is inherently gracious, genuine and relational, and not formulaic, forced or false.

7. Mission

Evangelical definition: Evangelism (see above).

Re-definition: Mission is simply our engagement with the world and with people as those who are in Christ, expressing his love and goodness, bringing his healing and hope. Matthew 25 lists a number of possible ways: visiting the sick and imprisoned, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry. It can involve evangelism but is more than just evangelism.

8. Grace

Evangelical definition: Grace is the unmerited favour of God in Christ to sinners deserving punishment, enabling them to live holy and pleasing lives of service and mission. It is also the state of being in God's favour and receiving his blessings.

Re-definition: Grace is the overflow of God's overwhelming love, beauty, goodness and generosity to all through Christ, covering over sins, overcoming weaknesses, blessing with all goodness; releasing, restoring, redeeming and healing.

9. Holiness / Righteousness

Evangelical definition: Primarily moral purity, the opposite of sin; achieved by a life of obedience and spiritual disciplines - prayer, fasting, Bible study, resisting sin and doing God's will.

Re-definition: Holiness is reflecting and displaying Christ's image through a life fully lived in/with him. It is a quality of goodness that comes from closeness to Christ.

Next and final batch: sin, hell, salvation, atonement...

Redefining salvation

...along with a bunch of other words. An attempt to rethink some core aspects of evangelical faith.

Imaginary regular readers of this blog (hello to my wife) may have noticed a bit of a chip on my shoulder about evangelical Christianity recently. I must be fair and acknowledge that there are many wonderful evangelicals, much that is good about evangelicalism, and much that is valuable that I've learnt from it. And I must also note that it has many and varied manifestations and not all my criticisms apply equally to all types of evangelical faith. And finally, there is much wrong with other streams and types of Christian belief - I just don't know so much about them.

I suppose the reason for my criticisms is that I have struggled to fit within mainstream evangelicalism for the past 15 years and have increasingly found that I'm not in accord with some of its core doctrines, priorities and methods - scriptural inerrancy, penal substitionary atonement, particular methods of evangelism etc. Rather than jettisoning the whole thing though, I'm trying to find ways of redefining the faith that work for me.

In the next post or two, I want to look at some key terms held dear by evangelicals and defined by them in very specific ways, and see if I can come up with re-definitions that fit better - for me at least. In no particular order...

1. Evangelicals

Evangelical definition: Proper Christians, who believe God's Word and the doctrines contained in it; who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour by faith through grace; who believe and preach the Gospel of Christ, and aspire to a life of personal holiness, good works and mission. They hold particular doctrines as of central importance - inerrancy and centrality of Scripture; the absolute Sovereignty of God; utter depravity of humans; penal substitionary atonement; exclusivity of Christ as the way to God; future judgement and hell for non-believers. Particular views of God, church, mission etc are also implied.

Re-definition: A particular type of Christian, but neither the only valid variety nor necessarily the best. Strong on theology, doctrine, teaching and a particular style of mission/evangelism, but often weak on creativity, beauty, contemplation, mystery and social justice. Negative tendencies include literalism/fundamentalism, puritanism and pharisaism, dogmatism, and over-formulaic approaches to life and faith.

2. Liberals

Evangelical definition: The opposite of evangelicals; often seen as the enemies of true Christianity. Liberals are wishy-washy and half-saved at best; they don't really believe anything, don't take the Bible literally, have lax morality and have compromised with the world.

Re-definition: As 'liber' means 'free', the positive meaning of liberal is one who has embraced the freedom of Christ and eschewed or shed the straitjacketing doctrinal rigidity of many brands of evangelical orthodoxy. Liberals are often much stronger than evangelicals on love, creativity and social justice. I've said in a previous post that I'm starting to see myself as an Evangelical Liberal.

3. The Bible

Evangelical definition: Holy Scripture; God's Word - eternal, inerrant, all-sufficient and self-interpreting, and from which can be mined doctrines to be believed, commands to be obeyed and promises to be claimed. The Bible is the believer's supreme guide and authority in life and in all matters of faith, morality, doctrine etc. If the Bible says something, it is to be taken literally if possible and to be accepted without criticism. Though notionally valuing all parts of scripture equally, evangelicals tend to place particular emphasis on the theological and doctrinal letters of Paul.

Re-definition: The Bible is a complex, multi-genre library of texts arising from the community of faith and their unfolding relationship with God. It can be seen as 'breathed' through its human authors by God, who continues to breathe afresh through the texts, bringing out new meanings, interpretations and emphases. The Bible is therefore not a fixed, static stone tablet but a living, breathing, dynamic text to be ongoingly engaged and wrestled with. Nor is it inerrant or 'perfect' in a modern historical or scientific sense; but it is nonetheless chosen and used by God for his purposes. Many non-evangelicals prefer to see the Bible as 'the Witness to the Word' rather than 'the Word of God', a title they (and the Bible) reserve for Jesus.

4. Truth

Evangelical definition: Correct ('sound') Christian doctrine as read from the Bible and expounded in propositional, expository preaching. Christian Truth is absolute, eternally fixed and unchanging. It is the opposite of error and false doctrine. Other forms of Christianity are generally deemed to have less of the truth than evangelicalism.

Re-definition: Jesus alone is the Truth - the truth about God and the truth about humanity. Truth is therefore not primarily propositional or doctrinal, but personal (the person of Christ) and relational. It is also not necessarily simple, systematic and fixed, but rather dynamic, paradoxical and often deeply counter-intuitive.

In the next post: Redefining the Gospel, evangelism, mission, grace, holiness...

Copyright or wrong?

Is downloading music from the internet without paying really stealing?

The issues of copyright and piracy are rarely far from the headlines these days, particularly the dire threats supposedly posed to the music and film industries by illegal online file-sharing.

I'm anti-copyright and pro-piracy. Tut.

In this month's excellent Third Way magazine, comedy script-writer and regular columnist James Cary expounds on why we should pay for content rather than expecting a free ride. Appropriately enough, you can only read his article in full if you subscribe (I'm tempted to give out the login details but sadly I've not managed to get hold of mine yet, though I'm a subscriber). He concludes with the words 'But Christians should know that stealing from the rich is still stealing, isn't it? And stealing is still bad, right? We haven't exegeted our way out of that one, have we?'

As an amateur musician/song-writer myself and someone who's enthusiastically embraced the potential the internet offers to music-lovers, I'm interested in these issues. And I have to say that, unlike Cary, I'm pretty much entirely anti-copyright and pro-piracy. And me calling myself a Christian. Tut.

Yes, downloading or copying music without paying for it is certainly illegal in most parts of the world - but is it stealing, and just how wrong is it really?

What is theft?

For a start, I'd say that it all rather depends on your definition of stealing, and crucially on who's defining it and for whose purposes and benefit. For example, the UK copyright law that works stay in copyright for 70 years after their creator's death seems designed almost entirely to protect companies' interests and profits.

A music file simply isn't an item of property or a possession in the same way that, say, your computer or your car is

A music file simply isn't an item of property or a possession in the same way that, say, your computer or your car is. Copying or downloading a music file does not take anything away from someone or deprive them of anything, except the putative income they could have generated from it had you chosen to buy it - which you may well not have done. It's not like you've broken into someone's house and nicked their CD collection, or even shoplifted from HMV.

Who's robbing who?

Of course, even if it is stealing, robbing the rich (and the faceless system) to benefit the poorer is culturally enshrined in British mythology through Robin Hood and the romantic (though admittedly false) myth of pirates. This may not make it morally right, but there's a lot of power and truth in myth and I for one am on the side of the outlaw Robin Hoods against the Sheriffs of Nottingham, however legally in the right they may be. Laws don't always serve the common good or the common people, and in my opinion the outgoing government's Digital Economy Bill sucks big time.

I'd also be inclined to argue that it's the record companies who are actually guilty of stealing from the music-buying public - and probably the artists - by charging far more than is necessary for CDs and taking far too large a cut of the profits.

There are so many free ways of accessing music now via the internet that it becomes a ridiculous splitting-hairs technicality to say that listening to it for free any time you like on Spotify, we7, Grooveshark or YouTube (etc) is fine, but downloading it free to your mp3 player from a number of sites that I won't list is wrong.

I need to find the actual evidence here, but I'm pretty sure that it's been shown that those who download music illegally also tend to be the biggest buyers of legal music. Cutting off illegal file-sharers from the internet is ultimately biting the hand that feeds the music industry.

As an aside, we also have the moral dilemma - is it morally right for Christians to financially support the decadent and self-destructive lifestyles of some rock stars by buying their songs? If not, does that mean we also mustn't listen to their music, which in a sense is separate from them and bigger than them?

Free music for all

Cords, notes and rhythms are no-one's possession - music should be free and available to all

This leads nicely into my main argument, which is simply that chords, notes and rhythms are no-one's possession and that music, like birdsong, should be free and available to all. This may sound hopelessly idealistic and old-fashioned, but there are various ways it could be sustained - for example by a model of rich patronage (as in Mozart's day, though admittedly he didn't do well out of it), or by donation (like the Covent Garden performers' model), or by self-support (e.g. Borodin, who was a chemist by trade as well as an amateur - but brilliant - composer). We don't have to buy into the current model of commodifying, professionalising and industrialising everything, including the arts.

As I said, I'm an amateur musician/composer/song-writer myself, albeit not a successful one who stands to lose out from piracy. You're more than welcome to listen to my music for free at http://sites.google.com/site/harveyscorner/songs or download it from http://sites.google.com/site/harveysongs/music.

Excuses, excuses?

So is all this just a bunch of self-justifying excuses so that I can get on with downloading music? Probably. I don't really believe that it's morally righteous and noble to pirate music, but I just don't think it's that wrong either. Let him who has never broken the speed limit or nicked soap from a hotel room cast the first stone. :-)

And let the last word go to 'Weird Al' Yankovic with his superb parody Don't download this song...

Evolution, progress and purpose

A strictly non-scientific speculation about the possibility of an underlying divine purpose to the natural process of evolution.

Biology versus ideology

people often associate evolution with progress... biologically, this is bunkum

A lot of people naturally associate the concept of evolution with ideas of progress, of improvement, of forward and upward movement to some higher goal. Hence the biological theory of evolution has often been co-opted by causes and movements seeking justification for their own utopian visions of progress, whether by means of communism, capitalism, eugenics, or whatever other hideous ideologies humans have managed to dream up. (I said in another post that the Bible has been used to justify many mutually-opposite ideologies - the same can equally be said of the theory of evolution by natural selection.)

Biologically speaking, this is bunkum (I could have used other words beginning with 'b'). The theory of evolution, as a strictly biological theory, has nothing to say about progress. Evolution by natural selection tends towards increased diversity of species, increased complexity (at least in general, I think), and better adaptation of a particular species to its environment. That's about it. It doesn't have anything to say about a future utopia or a master race of superbeings. Any speculations of this nature lead us promptly out of the realms of science and into philosophy and metaphysics.

That's not to say such speculation can't be valid - just that it won't be scientific, and those who engage in it shouldn't imagine that they are backed up by the science.

So with that fairly major caveat aside, I'm now going to indulge in some theological speculations about one possible relationship between evolution and progress.

The appearance of purpose

the whole process does give the impression of progress and purpose

I suspect the reason why so many people link evolution with progress is because the whole process, viewed from beginning to end, certainly gives that impression quite strongly. At one end we have self-replicating strings of protein; at the other we have immensely complex, conscious creatures who can think, love, create music, investigate the nature of reality, land on the Moon, and Twitter pointless rubbish fifty times a day. Well, not all progress is upward. ;-) But certainly there seems to be the appearance of a general direction, of some kind of progress, and, well, even of what might be called purposiveness in the whole process.

A biologist, as a biologist, would perhaps only view this as interesting but irrelevant to his or her work. But as a human they or anyone else can regard it as a phenomenon that could do with investigation - just not by the methods of science.

To one who believes in a supernatural God who invisibly underlies the visible processes of nature, it's no surprise if the broad sweep of evolutionary history tends towards the emergence of rational, relational, morally-responsible creatures. It's exactly what you would expect, though of course it's not something that science could predict or indeed comment on.

The dark side of progress

However, there are at least two serious problems with this. First, the whole process apparently relies so fundamentally on pain, predation and selfish competition. Secondly, the results are so mixed: for every Mother Teresa there's a Mao Tse Tung; for every Mona Lisa there's a My Lai massacre.

These really just re-state in a slightly different form the classic theological problems of evil and suffering, which I've tried to look at more fully in other posts (see links to related posts below). In brief, the usual answers are either that the evil is simply a necessary potential counterpart or flip-side to the good; or that there are malevolent, chaotic or corruptive forces at work in the cosmos alongside the good; or that humans are in some way morally responsible for at least some of the evil; or else that it's all just too darn mysterious and complicated for us mortal pea-brains to have a clue about. I tend to subscribe rather tentatively to a complete mixture of these answers. :-)

Related posts

• Why does God allow natural disasters?
• Why does God allow evil?
• Further thoughts on God and suffering
• It's only natural (but it still sucks)
• Evolution, fall and morality
• Addressing Creationist concerns

Evolution, fall and morality

Our evolutionary heritage | Adam and Eve | Talking Beasts

Were humans created perfect and then fell, or did we already bear the baggage of our evolutionary heritage?

Uncle Den, Irenaeus and the evolution of conscience

I'm rather proud to be related by marriage to Dr Denis Alexander, founder of the Faraday Institute and author of Rebuilding the Matrix and Creation or Evolution: do we have to choose? (Read my review) 'Uncle Den' is a bit of an expert in the field of evolutionary biology and is also a strongly evangelical Christian in the Reformed tradition. I have great respect for both his scientific views and for his faith, though my own theology is rather different.

After hearing him speak on Darwin and evolution at a conference at Spurgeon's College last year, I asked him what he thought about the role evolution may have played in the development of human conscience and moral sense, and also whether our evolutionary heritage had predisposed us to sin. I can't remember his answer in full but he seemed inclined to believe that we were originally fully able to obey God and had chosen not to - very much the standard evangelical line.

Irenaeus believed that humans were created immature

However, he did mention the 2nd-century theologian Irenaeus who believed that humans were created immature/imperfect and we were intended to reach maturity through a lengthy process of change, growth and development. Denis doesn't agree with this view but to me it makes a lot of sense, particularly in light of evolutionary theory.

Our evolutionary heritage

humans share millions of years of evolutionary history and heritage with other animals

If Darwinian evolution is broadly true, as I believe it is, then we humans share millions of years of evolutionary history and heritage with other animals, including all the instinctive mechanisms of lust, greed, aggression and selfishness that have always been vital for survival in a competitive world of limited resources. We know that nature is at best amoral, and we may not like it but we do not blame lions for killing zebras, frigate birds for robbing terns, robins for being aggressively territorial, cuckoos for laying eggs in other birds' nests, or ducks for having multiple partners. Our closest living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, are frequently violent and sexually promiscuous.

This leads me to two major questions:

1) If we do indeed owe much of our own evolutionary history and DNA to creatures like these, how on earth could humans have escaped bearing the marks of this in our own instincts and behaviour? Why wouldn't our earliest human ancestors have been every bit as aggressive and lustful - as amoral - as all these other creatures?

2) But in that case, how come humans do - apparently unlike all other creatures - have an inbuilt moral sense, a deep belief that so many of these 'natural' behaviours are in fact morally repugnant? As I say, we don't hold animals morally responsible for their behaviour, nor do we expect them to feel guilty for doing what comes naturally. But we ourselves have set up complex ethical, moral and legal systems to discourage indulgence in many evolutionarily-encoded activities. Why?

Adam and Eve

I've said before that I don't hold the Genesis chapter 2 'fall' story to be factual history, but nor do I believe it to be merely fictional. I see it as mythicised history, with elements of fact set in a highly symbolised myth to convey spiritual, psychological and theological truth.

'Adam and Eve' were already evolutionarily predisposed to sin

If my hypothesis is in any way correct, then 'Adam and Eve' were already evolutionarily predisposed to sin (qu 1 above). However, God somehow set them spiritually or morally apart from other creatures, giving them (whether by divine act or by natural means) a unique moral sense of right and wrong which enabled them to rise above the legacy of their brutish evolutionary past (qu 2 above). Their inability to do so in the long run is not only their story but the story of all their descendants - of you and me.

To me, this account seems the obvious way to marry classic Christian theology with current biological theory. However, I realise that it will please neither evangelicals nor evolutionary scientists. It pleases me though, and maybe Iranaeus too. :-)

Talking Beasts

"Do not go back to their ways lest you cease to be Talking Beasts"

As usual, C.S. Lewis and Narnia come to my aid at this point. In The Magician's Nephew, when Aslan has brought forth the animals from the earth he goes among them and touches a male and female of each kind to set them apart. Then he breathes on them, there is a flash of fire and he speaks words of power over them: 'Narnia, Narnia, Narnia, awake. Love. Think. Speak. Be walking trees. Be talking beasts. Be divine waters.' The Talking beasts reply: 'Hail, Aslan. We hear and obey. We are awake. We love. We think. We speak. We know.' Then he instructs them:

'Creatures, I give you yourselves... I give to you forever this land of Narnia. I give you the woods, the fruits, the rivers... I give you myself. The Dumb Beasts whom I have not chosen are yours also. Treat them gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways lest you cease to be Talking Beasts. For out of them you were taken and into them you can return. Do not so.'

Of course this is a myth, and unlike the Eden story it is entirely fictional, but it is nonetheless powerful and instructive. Aslan - okay, God - has chosen beings from among the dumb beasts to think, love, speak and know. But they share a common origin and heritage with the dumb animals and can return to their un-talking state if they follow their unthinking, unloving ways. This is far closer to the Irenaean view as I understand it, and to mine, than the classic evangelical reading of Genesis.

Related posts:

• It's only natural (but it still sucks)
• Addressing Creationist concerns

It's only natural (but it still sucks)

Death of a duckling | Rage against who? | Nature, good and bad

What does the death of a duckling have to say about the nature of the universe and God?

Death of a duckling

I even chose my secondary school partly on the basis of a brood of ducklings

I've always been tremendously fond of ducklings (I don't mean crispy fried). I even unwisely chose my secondary school partly on the basis that there was a brood of ducklings in the quad pond when I went for the open evening. And this year my 4-year-old son has been asking for daily report-backs on how many ducklings I've seen in Greenwich Park. For the past week I'd sadly had to report dwindling numbers - 9 down to 5, down to 4, down to 2... but then on Tuesday lunchtime to my delighted amazement I came upon 17 ducklings in the main wildfowl lake. I happily watched the antics of the little swimming fluff-balls for some time and was about to turn away when I noticed a Canada Goose treading on a duckling that was sitting on the concrete sloping down into the water. The goose then picked up the duckling in its beak, shook it and dropped it. It lay still.

Angry and upset, I stood wondering whether I should transgress the park boundaries, step over the fence and pick up the duckling, although I was sure that it was already dead. Then a crow flew down and snatched up the little body in its beak, but a mother duck flew at it and it dropped the dead duckling into the water where it floated with its head underwater. The saddest sight for me was the mother duck swimming up behind it and repeatedly nudging the little floating body with her beak as though she could coax it back to life. At the risk of being written off as pathetically sentimental, it brought tears to my eyes and an intense feeling of loss and grief.

Rage against - who?

suddenly that dead duckling represented all the injustice of the world

I know it's all perfectly natural and normal, and that only a few ducklings - and other young animals - survive to adolescence, let alone adulthood. But suddenly that small bedraggled floating bundle of dead duckling became for me the representative of all the injustice and wrong and cruelty of the world, and my heart just wanted to shout out abuse and rage against whatever it was that made things be this way.

The obvious thought is that it's God who made things this way, and against him that my anger should be directed. But I can't shake the feeling that the God I've seen in Jesus Christ was grieving every bit as much for that duckling as I was. In some ways the duckling was like Christ - the very symbol of innocent suffering at the hands of the cruelty and injustice in the universe. I felt that my anger must be directed at all the evil in the world, and at the corresponding evil in myself.

Nature, good and bad

Is the universe fundamentally benevolent or hostile?

Nature is so full of beauty and loveliness, and simultaneously so full of suffering and death. Is the one necessary for the other, or are death and cruelty alien and unnatural evils that have found their way into a good creation?

What about lust, greed, anger and violence - these things feel entirely natural; are they just natural in-built parts of our evolved survival package, or are they a corruption of good instincts and impulses?

Is the universe fundamentally benevolent or hostile, kind or cruel? Is it more truly natural to be compassionate and caring or to compete and kill?

I have no easy answers to these questions. All I know is that I have chosen to base my life on the reality and goodness of God, to believe in the beauty and grace despite the very real pain and injustice. This present world, this nature, is good but it is not perfect, is not how it is ultimately meant to be. Perhaps the pain is part of the process of becoming perfect - or perhaps it is an evil to be fought and overcome.

Related posts:

• Evolution, fall and morality
• Earthquakes and God - why does God allow natural disasters?

"But the Bible says...!"

An unprovoked rant against knee-jerk proof-texting and a particular way of viewing the Bible.

God said it, that settles it?

When presented with any new idea, particularly in the fields of theology, ethics, church practice or morality, in my experience many evangelical Christians will respond with a cry of "But the Bible says...". I say this as a recovering evangelical, having used this approach many times myself.

There's even a mantra that used to be popular in more fundamentalist circles which goes "God said it, I believe it, that settles it".

The trouble is that this is, quite frankly, trite and facile. Sorry if I'm causing offence.

A complex Bible

The Bible can be used to make almost any point you wish

Unfortunately by its very nature the Bible, like statistics, can be used to make almost any point you wish. It can be (and has been) used in support of both slavery and its abolition, of both chauvinism and feminism, of racist apartheid and the civil rights movement, of capitalism and communism. This doesn't mean that there isn't a truth to be reached and that we should just give up. What it does mean is that we can't just find a bunch of verses that seem to agree with our position and say "But the Bible says".

For what the Bible says on any subject is invariably varied, nuanced, complex and contextual, requiring careful (and prayerful) interpretation. The Bible is not a simple divine textbook from which neat answers can be read for all given situations that will arise. Neither is it a fixed stone tablet from which universally applicable and eternally valid truths, commands or divine promises can be mined to order.

Sadly for those who crave certainty there is no holy grail of once-for-all, one-size-fits-all truth that can be applied directly to any and every time and circumstance.

For this reason "what does the Bible say?" is not to my mind a particularly useful question. Far better to ask "what does the Bible mean when it says that?" and "what is the Holy Spirit speaking to us today through these words?"

Avoiding pitfalls

we need to be open to engaging with opposing viewpoints

Of course, there are dangers in this approach as well. We can quite easily persuade ourselves that the Bible means pretty much anything we want it to, even when it appears to be saying the exact opposite. We need safeguards against our own inevitable prejudices and blind spots, and it seems to me the best ones are humility, openness and prayer.

We need to be open to the Spirit, open to our being wrong and needing to rethink, and open to engaging with other and opposing viewpoints in humility and charity. We need to discover what our own blind spots and preconceptions are so that we can learn to counter them. And we need to read each biblical passage as far as possible in its historical, literary and theological context, in light of the whole Bible, and with reference to what other Christians through the ages have understood by the passage. Only then can we hope to be as free as possible from personal prejudice, partisan polemic and pointless proof-texting.

Related posts:

• Why I believe Creationists get it wrong part 2 - Scripture