Christian Integrity

As the Anglican church continues to wrestle with such eternal questions as whether a woman or a homosexual has the same rights as a celibate middle-class male, the faith's public-relations director has turned out an article, "Good religion needs good science", in which he claims that "nothing in scientific method contradicts Christian teaching", and that therefore, while the Church may have been "mistaken" in its initial reaction to the theory of evolution, the danger now lies in "those who falsely claim" Darwin's name "in support of their own interests".

In support of his claim that scientific method is compatible with Christianity, the Reverend Dr Malcolm Brown (for it is he) cites Matthew 6 xxv-xxxiii, stating that in this passage Jesus "invited people to observe the world around them and to reason from what they saw to an understanding of the nature of God". The nature of the world, according to Jesus, implies that one should not take thought for the morrow, should not plan one's next meal and should not bother about clothes. The reasoning behind this appears to be that human beings can live like birds or lilies. Pace the Reverend Brown, I fear that scientific method, which hypothesises that human beings may not be in quite the same category as either of these organisms, might find itself diverging slightly here.

The Reverend Brown also trots out the idea that Christians don't really believe anything particularly unreasonable: "they do not claim that [the Bible] is a compendium of all knowledge". Perhaps not, although the notorious atheist Jerry Falwell did claim that it is "absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." (Listen, America!, 1980). According to the Reverend Brown, what Christians believe is that "the Bible contains all that we need to know to be saved from our sins". Whatever that may mean, it is clearly not enough to enable some of us to judge whether a woman or a homosexual has the same rights as a celibate middle-class male. Nevertheless, "it is worth remembering that scientific theories can be overtaken in their turn even as old ideas", such as misogyny, homophobia, thoughtcrime and the like, "prove to have an enduring quality." Well, if the truth of a belief system is to be judged by its shelf life, then Isis and Osiris are more real than the Resurrection.

The Reverend Brown does not blame Darwin for the sort of Social Darwinist ideas, practised by Christians such as Tony Blair, George W Bush and Gordon Brown, "in which the strong flourish and losers go to the wall". Not only is this sort of thing "the complete converse of what Darwin himself believed about human relationships": it is also "the very opposite of the Christian vision" in Luke I xlvi-lv. These verses, known as the Magnificat, note that God is merciful to those who fear him; that God favours some and sends others empty away; and that he speaks "to Abraham and to his seed for ever". There is, of course, nothing in this that contradicts Social Darwinism. Those who are strong in the Lord (namely, the seed of Abraham - a master race, who are born to the privilege) will flourish; the losers, like those dogs the Canaanites, get the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Still, the Reverend Brown regards Social Darwinism as a Bad Thing because "it is vital that Darwin’s theories are rescued from political and ideological agendas that are more about controlling human imagination and unpredictability than about good science". Since the Reverend Brown has himself pointed out that Social Darwinism is not Darwin's theory, this assertion makes less for good science or good religion than for good rhetoric.

The moral of it all, apparently, is that "for the sake of human integrity - and thus for the sake of good Christian living - some rapprochement between Darwin and Christian faith is essential". It seems good Christian living has something to do with human integrity, rather than with following the divine will, no matter where it listeth; how is the Almighty fallen. "Good religion needs to work constructively with good science" - good religion being, apparently, those controls over human imagination and unpredictability that the Anglican church finds it expedient to practise at the moment - and the Reverend Brown dares to suggest that "the opposite may be true as well". I am not sure what counts as "good science" in the Reverend Brown's view; but I do seem to recall reading somewhere - Richard Dawkins? Reader's Digest? - that there is none good but one.