Is The Episcopal Church really as postmodern as she thinks?



The main focus of the General Convention this year in the Episcopal Church was the issue of homsexuality and the Anglican Communion's response to America's lack of respect (or prophetic movements) concerning the election of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. It has become somewhat of a debate between liberals and conservatives (obviously there were cross-overs, but not many) and a debate between the "progressive" movement and the "traditional" movement. Interestingly enough the traditional side is always having to fight off charges of not being "with the times" or "postmodern" in its theology and philosophy because it is stuck on the old ways. I won't argue anything about the gay and lesbian issue nor why believing in the traditional position can be done by both "modern" and "postmodern" thinkers. What I thought was most interesting as a resolution showing how pathetically modern the Episcopal Church really is was a resolution on evolution. Here it is:

"A129 : Affirm Creation and Evolution
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention affirm that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and the ancient Creeds of the Church; and be it further, Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge."

To be honest, I like most of this resolution even though I do not affirm the classic Darwinian natural selection scheme, but it is the last part I want to draw attention to. Up until this point everything was going fine but, predictably, the classic modernist "gods of science" clause is brought in.

"Seeking assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge."

Now I am not quite sure what scientists they are thinking about in this resolution, so I have to at least show a measure of charity here. If those in mind are the likes of Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, and John Polkinghorne (all distinguished scientists as well as orthodox Christians) then I hearilty endorse this resolution. I wish Nancey Murhpy was deciding school educational content in the sciences! What I fear is that the "scientists and science educators" are the same autonomous group of "gods" who seem to be neutral and unbiased in their pursuit and command of absolute truth.

Give me a break. Has no one in the house of bishops or house of deputies being involved in the philosophy of science and knowledge in the last hundred years? Has anyone in their read or understood Michael Polanyi's work on the personal element to all knowledge, or the issues of warrant that Alvin Plantinga has been so keen to point out? Are there actually educated people out there who think there is a group of neutral scientists just searching for truth who can be brought in to adjudicate on whether something is "scientific" enough for school or most importantly in this context, church teaching?

Sorry, call me a Van Tillian, but the last thing I want is some atheist telling me what constitutes scientific knowledge and what doesn't. As Matheson Russell pointed out to me this year: "Scientists don't have any idea what they are doing [philosophically]." The myth of scientific neutrality keeps rearing its ugly head for some reason when it has been quite conclusively shown that there is no such thing. Everyone does their work from certain presuppositions and if they are not Christian ones, I don't care what subject you are studying, your opinion in what is true is just not that binding on the Church. Coming to recognize our own indebtedness to certain traditions and basic beliefs in our horizons is one of the greatest things about "postmodernity." The demon of objective absolutivity outside of a certain reference frame has been defeated, why do we still give him any says?

Everyone who knows me (or Van Til's philosophy) knows this does not mean relativism; it just means being honest about our presuppositions and how they govern our beliefs (scientific or otherwise). Just in case anyone doubts in the influence of "religious" beliefs on all scientific work, look at the case of consciousness in modern physics and science in general. Those who are committed to a non-Theistic or more pointedly, a reductionistic account of nature are really fighting the evidence of non-physicality in the mind over the brain, which has been quite seriously advocated by the likes of Kurt Godel, Roger Penrose, John von Neumann, and John Eccles, to name a few. No matter what evidence is shown for non-physical descriptions of the mind and reality, people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are going to continue to sing a different tune. But they would be naive to say they are singing only because of "objective" facts. Their own non-Theistic presuppositions are weighing in heavily in the determination of what is "scientific" and what is "supperstitious." Again, I am sorry but I have no time for someone who is deciding what is "scientific", or "true reality" when their basic conception or reality is so flawed (no belief in the Triune God).

I think the "scientists and science educators" bring certain things to the table of dialogue and search for truth that are important and so I appreciate their contribution in furthering the conversation of reality; but as far as deciding what is "scientific" in the broadest sense, no thank you. I will take someone who can to the research they can and has the right presuppositions with which to do it. Calvin needs to be remembered: you can't see the world aright unless you are wearing proper glasses. These people certainly aren't.

So I find it interesting that the Episcopal Church totes the label "postmodern" to its advantage in the gay and lesbian issue, but rejects it completely in the area of scientific research and education. Tom Wright's comments about the homosexual response seem to be continuously appropriate: "This sounds like a straightforward attempt to have one's cake and eat it [too]."