The Evolution
of Religion – Part II
I find the following things interesting about biological
evolution.
#1. Evolution is
not random. It always promotes the
propagation of the species from one generation to the next. And this is the ONLY metric that is important
to evolution.
#2. Species don’t
plan ahead as they evolve. In fact they
don’t plan to evolve at all.
#3. Species can’t
help but evolve. It is impossible for
them not to change, and that’s a good thing, because if they were not able to
adapt and change, they would go extinct.
I think the idea of biological evolution is distasteful
to many Christians because the forces that shape the progress of evolution seem
random, chaotic, cruel, and purposeless.
How can God be working out His will when the process seems completely against
His character? How can I be special and
made in the image of God if I am just one step in a line of continual change?
I think it becomes even more distasteful when applied to
the church. But as I look around me I
find that “evolution” explains the state of the religious landscape quite
well. It is becoming clear to me that religions
evolve and change following the same survival
of the fittest principles as species do in the wild.
As one example; At one point in our countries history,
preaching “fire and brimstone” was a popular method for creating converts and
growing churches. The famous sermon,
“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards was a powerful
sermon in its day and quite effective.
Many people came to faith through these methods. However in the U.S. today people are
generally more educated and less easily emotionally manipulated by this style
of fear mongering. The result? That type of in your face preaching, threatening
and angry, is no longer widely practiced in U.S. This is not to say that emotional
manipulation is no longer employed (especially the emotions of fear and guilt)
but that this particular type of emotional manipulation has left the “DNA” of
the church. Why? Not because it offended God, but simply
because it doesn’t work anymore. And by “work” I mean help the church survive
and propagate. If it still worked
does anyone doubt that it wouldn’t be used?
But it doesn’t work as well now, so it isn’t as widely used.
As another example:
The early Christian church was rejected and (at times ruthlessly) persecuted
by the Roman Empire. Christians refused
to worship the Roman emperors and refused military service on religious
principle. It wasn’t until Constantine
converted to Christianity during the 4th century and made
Christianity the state religion that Christians started to engage in military
service and changed their religious principles.
The newly changed religious principles included the idea of a “just war”
that Christians were free (if not encouraged) to join. And one of the justifications of war included
the spread of Christianity. After that
point, Christian history is replete with the barbarous examples of the
Crusades, the Inquisition, Conquistadors, and “manifest destiny”- the doctrine justifying
the genocide of native Americans. Most
recently the idea of American “exceptionalism” is used to justify current U.S.
military policy. In short, when
Christians were not in political power, Christianity denied the moral
legitimacy of ever using violence on enemies (per Jesus’ instructions), but
once Christians came into political power, the Christian religion evolved to
view violence as a morally acceptable means to impose religion on others.
In both of these examples, these changes in the church were
not “random”. These changes specifically
have the effect of growing the church, and assuring its survival. The church adapts to the new environments it
encounters. But who is to say if these
changes please God? They may or may not
be “right”. The change has only made the
church “work” better. The important
thing for religious evolution is that the changes work regardless of whether they
are “right”.
As a reminder, this is true in biological evolution as
well. A butterfly doesn’t have beautiful
wings because of their beauty; they have beautiful wings because that
“works”. The skunk doesn’t stink in
order to smell bad; the skunk stinks because it works. Some of what Christianity has evolved is
undoubtedly beautiful (truth), and some it stinks (falsehoods), but what has
given me pause is that maybe none of
what the church is today is “on purpose”.
The degree to which the church is beautiful and/or stinks has nothing to
do with mankind purposing, directing,
or protecting truth any more than the butterfly is trying to be beautiful. Some truth is undoubtedly good for church
growth and some truth unfortunately is not.
I am becoming convinced that the truth that doesn’t work has long ago
been jettisoned and the remaining truth has been allowed to survive only
because it is useful to the church and it survives alongside that which stinks in the church. (e.g. Is our understanding of hell as some sort of "eternal conscience torment" based on Truth or on what is effective at keeping people attending a church?) Maybe religion today (this is nobody’s fault) consists solely of what works. It is up to us to find the Beauty and Truth
that is still contained therein.
I don’t deny that God could or would intervene to protect
His beauty. I believe He has, but I
don’t see it being contained in any one church, or in any one religion.
I have not lost my faith in God, but I have lost my faith in
religion. I think it is just too
tempting for any religion not to use their most powerful tools (doctrines on
theology and morality) to further their own survival rather than reflect the
glory of God.
What is a soul? What happens after we die? What is heaven and hell? How does one become saved? What is required of the believer? What pleases God? How do I win God’s favor? What is right and wrong? What is the Bible?
These are the deep questions of life. How does Christianity answer these questions
and how much of those answers are grounded in Truth and Beauty? How much of Christianity's answers are rooted in the
religion’s mere survival?
No comments:
Post a Comment