Science and the Church

by

Perspectives

“Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...

"Galileo . . . understood [that] only the sun could function as the centre of the . . . planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scipture."

This statement is an official declaration of Pope John Paul II dated November 2, 1992. It vindicated and "liberated the soul" of Galileo who had been under charges of heresy for over 350 years.

Galileo's sin was believing that the earth was not flat with four corners at the center of a three-storied cosmos, i.e., heaven above and hell below, around which moved the sun, moon, and stars. This concept of the cosmos had been the teaching of scripture and tradition for 2,000 years.

Charles Darwin introduced the concept of evolution to the scientific world in the mid-19th century. At first the church, both Catholic and Protestant, held the concept of evolution to be in conflict with scripture and 2,000 years of Biblical tradition. As evidence and the scientific consensus supporting the evolutionary hypothesis grew those who defended the creation stories of the Bible held that Darwin's concept was only hypothetical. The Christian community was divided between those who took the new science seriously and adjusted their theology accordingly and the more reactionary conservatives that insisted on the inerrancy, if not the infallibility, of the Biblical narrative.

This second epoch of conflict between science and religion was intense. For many fundamentalist Christians this conflict isn't over. Hence, the pressure from that segment of our population to promote "creationism" in our schools and public institutions.

We are now in an era when long-repressed sexual issues are emerging. Long-established sexual taboos are melting and mores are changing. The reaction is particularly intense over homosexuality and same-sex attraction.

A few weeks ago the Rev. Keith Boyette, president of the Wesleyan Covenant Association, was quoted saying that there is no scientific proof that same-sex attractions are genetic. He says scientific claims that same-sex attraction is a genetic predisposition are only hypothetical. Sound familiar?

Conservative Evangelicals believe, like the pre-Copernican church believed about the cosmos, that their rules for sexual behavior are "in some way imposed by the literal sense of sacred scripture."

In the late 1970s when homosexuality first emerged as a hot issue at our Southern Illinois Annual Conference, I frequently asked some of our vocal advocates of greater restrictions what they would do when 10 years hence, science proved that homosexuality is genetic in its origin and basically an ontological rather than a moral issue. I usually got one or the other of two responses. One would end the discussion with it isn't going to happen because of what the Bible says. The other was to act like they didn't hear me, didn't understand the question, or denied the possibility with some form of evasion.

More recently I have had a few opportunities to ask the question directly in conversation with some of my conservative colleagues. Frequently their eyes say one thing but their mouths change the subject. How long, I wonder, is this going to go on? When science and the church do one of these head-ons, sooner or later the church winds up with egg on its face.

The anti-gay folks will lose this argument no matter how many churches or other institutions they manage to tear apart with their animus and fear. Science and religion are only in conflict when people choose prejudice over reality. It is absurd that it took the church more than 400 years to set the soul of Galileo free. It is absurd that the Texas Education Commission is still insisting on inclusion of creationism in text books as a viable scientific alternative to evolution.

Ultimately the current destructive conflict in our denomination will be seen as an exercise in absurdity. I don't want my beloved United Methodist Church torn apart because some of us disagree with one another. From the standpoint of our own origins and theological foundations, it is absurd.

Retired Bishop William B. Lewis served the Dakotas Area as an active bishop from 1988 to 1996.