Last night in "small group" we watched a video on David and Goliath (here we go again, killing in defense of God). Anyway, what was interesting is that the video's narrator mentioned that the Israelites did not have iron technology back in those days. This was no small thing. Iron was very high tech, superior to any other metal that was being used at the time. And the Israelites, God's chosen people, didn't have the know-how to produce it. But their enemies, the Philistines (of which Goliath was one) did, and they controlled the monopoly on its production and distribution.
Of course the video made much of the fact that David was able to bring down Goliath with one stone. Not long after that, however, he found himself fighting on the Philistine side against his own people (that must have been one interesting conversation when he shows up at Philistine headquarters after having killed their champion--"you want to join us? Why?"). Shortly thereafter the Bible records that the Israelites began using iron technology for themselves and it is theorized that David had a hand in "stealing" this technology.
The video then went on to ask, what is the equivalent of "iron" in our culture, and how can Christians appropriate it to their (God's) uses. So we had quite an interesting discussion afterwards. It didn't dawn on me at the time to ask why the Chosen People, God's favorites, were also-rans in the technology race, why they couldn't have been the first to figure out how to smelt and use iron, but instead had to steal it from the pagan Philistines? But I am trying very hard to behave myself. I don't want to go around making enemies unnecessarily.
So everyone had different suggestions on what they thought "iron" was in our culture, most predictably entertainment and the media, that sort of thing. I brought up science and technology. Now if you've been following my blog, I've written quite extensively on some of the things going on in science and technology. I mentioned some of the things that I deal with at work on a regular basis, such as transgenic mice (mice with human genes, this is not science fiction, folks, this is absolute fact). I said there are things going on out there that you would not believe. Yet, when I look around at who is who in the science and technology fields, who the players are, what they are working on, very few of them are what you would call "believers". These are the ones with the "iron", folks. The sad fact is that evangelicals are not known for innovation, are not known for research and development, not known for breakthroughs. Where is the evangelical equivalent of the late Steve Jobs for example? I mentioned autism research. I said that 99% of what I have learned about autism has been written by people who have a secular viewpoint. That is bound to rub off.
Well, said one man, it is because science and faith have different mindsets. So then, I asked, are science and faith not compatible? Yes, he said. They are not. Wait a minute, said another, and proceeded to cite several creationists and Focus on the Family (a real scientific powerhouse if there ever was one). So faith and science are compatible apparently if one does not use the methods of science to look too closely at faith. It is science that must be examined through the eyes of faith. Perhaps, but I think the first man's answer is much more honest. It at least acknowledges that the chasm between the two cannot be bridged unless you do violence to both. And I think, if you've been following my blog, you know where I stand and what decision I have made in regard to this issue. It is a decision that would sadden my new friends, but like Martin Luther long ago, "here I stand, I can do no more."
Not far from here there is a large community of Amish. Now, 150 years ago, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the Amish and their non-Amish neighbors when it came to technology. The Amish, however, made a series of choices that with every passing year separates them more and more from the rest of us. Because their population is expanding, they are starting to move into areas where they never used to live before, and that is creating some interesting issues regarding religious accommodation. But, the key thing about the Amish, is by making the choices they did, they gave up their "right" to speak to the rest of us. The Amish are viewed as quaint. But they are not shaping society. Nor are they seeking converts. Theirs is a closed society. They have no "iron". Much is made of Amish self-sufficiency but that is a myth. The Amish are very dependent on the goodwill and tolerance of the rest of us.
Will evangelical Christianity go the way of the Amish, taking advantage of the larger society's technology when it suits them, and ignoring it when it does not, but in either case not contributing anything new? Like I said, the Amish have lost the power to shape society. This is what they have chosen. Evangelical Christianity still thinks that it has a mandate to change the world and remake it over into its image. But if they succeed, what then? What will we as a society lose?
Of course the video made much of the fact that David was able to bring down Goliath with one stone. Not long after that, however, he found himself fighting on the Philistine side against his own people (that must have been one interesting conversation when he shows up at Philistine headquarters after having killed their champion--"you want to join us? Why?"). Shortly thereafter the Bible records that the Israelites began using iron technology for themselves and it is theorized that David had a hand in "stealing" this technology.
The video then went on to ask, what is the equivalent of "iron" in our culture, and how can Christians appropriate it to their (God's) uses. So we had quite an interesting discussion afterwards. It didn't dawn on me at the time to ask why the Chosen People, God's favorites, were also-rans in the technology race, why they couldn't have been the first to figure out how to smelt and use iron, but instead had to steal it from the pagan Philistines? But I am trying very hard to behave myself. I don't want to go around making enemies unnecessarily.
So everyone had different suggestions on what they thought "iron" was in our culture, most predictably entertainment and the media, that sort of thing. I brought up science and technology. Now if you've been following my blog, I've written quite extensively on some of the things going on in science and technology. I mentioned some of the things that I deal with at work on a regular basis, such as transgenic mice (mice with human genes, this is not science fiction, folks, this is absolute fact). I said there are things going on out there that you would not believe. Yet, when I look around at who is who in the science and technology fields, who the players are, what they are working on, very few of them are what you would call "believers". These are the ones with the "iron", folks. The sad fact is that evangelicals are not known for innovation, are not known for research and development, not known for breakthroughs. Where is the evangelical equivalent of the late Steve Jobs for example? I mentioned autism research. I said that 99% of what I have learned about autism has been written by people who have a secular viewpoint. That is bound to rub off.
Well, said one man, it is because science and faith have different mindsets. So then, I asked, are science and faith not compatible? Yes, he said. They are not. Wait a minute, said another, and proceeded to cite several creationists and Focus on the Family (a real scientific powerhouse if there ever was one). So faith and science are compatible apparently if one does not use the methods of science to look too closely at faith. It is science that must be examined through the eyes of faith. Perhaps, but I think the first man's answer is much more honest. It at least acknowledges that the chasm between the two cannot be bridged unless you do violence to both. And I think, if you've been following my blog, you know where I stand and what decision I have made in regard to this issue. It is a decision that would sadden my new friends, but like Martin Luther long ago, "here I stand, I can do no more."
Not far from here there is a large community of Amish. Now, 150 years ago, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the Amish and their non-Amish neighbors when it came to technology. The Amish, however, made a series of choices that with every passing year separates them more and more from the rest of us. Because their population is expanding, they are starting to move into areas where they never used to live before, and that is creating some interesting issues regarding religious accommodation. But, the key thing about the Amish, is by making the choices they did, they gave up their "right" to speak to the rest of us. The Amish are viewed as quaint. But they are not shaping society. Nor are they seeking converts. Theirs is a closed society. They have no "iron". Much is made of Amish self-sufficiency but that is a myth. The Amish are very dependent on the goodwill and tolerance of the rest of us.
Will evangelical Christianity go the way of the Amish, taking advantage of the larger society's technology when it suits them, and ignoring it when it does not, but in either case not contributing anything new? Like I said, the Amish have lost the power to shape society. This is what they have chosen. Evangelical Christianity still thinks that it has a mandate to change the world and remake it over into its image. But if they succeed, what then? What will we as a society lose?
