MalcolmDow.com

This morning I was reading “My Prayer Journal” in the Victorian Baptist Witness. Part of the diary for Wednesday and Thursday went as follows:

Something interesting happened today. Saw Greg put ‘religion’ and ‘new age’
books together (in the ‘new age’ section). He even put the Bibles there! It
really upset me and I was surprised at the intensity of my feelings. …
…
Well I spoke to Greg and thank you God, he was really cool about it. It
actually opened up some discussion about my faith. And it felt so natural
talking about it. … he was relieved that I could advise him on what should go
in the ‘religion’ section and what should go in the ‘new age’ section (he didn’t
mind at all when I said they were very different).

There is so much here that I could comment on – the assumed difference between religion and New Age, for example. But considering that this was an issue of the Witness devoted to exploring being a Christian in a secular workplace, I want to look at where the books should have been placed.

Being married to a librarian myself I can understand the desire to have things in the right place. However, given that New Age would definitely fit the criteria for a religion I expect they wouldn’t be far apart. It raises two questions for me. Why would we prefer to put Christian books in a place a New Ager might never look? And why put them where a Christian will never encounter the New Age books?

If we are truly interested in ministry in the marketplace, then we must not hide Jesus from those in the market, while at the same time we need to learn how those in the market think if we are to expect to impact their lives.

The depth of the secular/sacred divide for the person writing the diary might be guaged from the intensity of their feelings when the Christian and New Age books were innocently placed side by side. Should we be offended? Can’t Jesus take care of himself? Where would he be found – hanging around the church or out in the market?

Lots of questions. I’d like to hear some of your answers.

Religion News Blog is not a blog I take a lot of notice of, as it is usually full of negative reports about the seemier side of religion, and I am a follower of Jesus who hates ‘religion’ with a passion. However, ocassionally it has a gem.

This article, The green fervour: Is environmentalism the new religion? is a good example. Joseph Brean, of The National Post, Canada, reviews The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction by Vancouver-based author and mathematician David Orrell. In his book Orrell sets out to explain why the mathematical models scientists use to predict the weather, the climate and the economy are not getting any better, just more refined in their uncertainty. What he discovered, in trying to sketch the first principles of prophecy, was the religious nature of modern environmentalism.

Of course, to anyone who has been watching this movement, and has had to relate to many of its adherents, this comes as no surprise, steeped as it is in the worship of Gaia, in paganism, in the Goddess cult, ‘alternative’ lifestyle, natural ‘therapies’ and New Age philosophy, etc.

One of my concerns about religions is how almost invariably the object of worship is considered so overwhelmingly important that the place of people is relegated to a distant second. In fact, as can be seen in much of the environmental religion, when humanity gets considered it’s either as a scapegoat for all the destruction, or as a political bargaining chip in the achievement of ‘more important’ goals – the saving of the planet. But, the saving of the planet for what? or who? The same might be said of the right-wing evangelical branch of the ’scientific’ religion, Darwinism.

Brean says:

This is not to say that fearing for the future of the planet is irrational in the way supernatural belief arguably is, just that — in its myths of the Fall and the Apocalypse, its saints and heretics, its iconography and tithing, its reliance on prophecy, even its schisms — the green movement now exhibits the same psychology of compliance as religion.

Dr. Orrell is no climate-change denier. He calls himself green. But he understands the unjustified faith that arises from the psychological need to make predictions.

He then looks at how the green movement appears to emulate an Old Testament prophet, or the oracles of ancient Greece, attempting to predict so many things, such as the change in the weather, the loss of species, to the ultimate demise of the planet. It’s not the concern he is calling into question, but the ‘prophecying’.

Brean quotes John Kay of the Financial Times, writing about future climate chaos:

Christians look to the Second Coming, Marxists look to the collapse of capitalism, with the same mixture of fear and longing … The discovery of global warming filled a gap in the canon … [and] provides justification for the link between the sins of our past and the catastrophe of our future.

Here is an excerpt, from Kay’s website of what he said:

Environmental evangelists are [therefore] not interested in pragmatic solutions to climate change or technological fixes for it. They are even less interested in evidence that if we were really serious about reducing carbon emissions we could do so by large amounts without significantly affecting our economies or our lives. Windmills on roofs and cycling to work are insignificant in practical consequence, but that is to miss their point. Every ideology needs rituals of observance, which demonstrate the commitment of adherents…Business should treat the environmental movement as it treats other forms of religious belief.

Business leaders do not themselves have to believe its doctrines. Indeed we should be wary if they do: business linked to faiths and ideologies is a sinister and unaccountable power.

As you can imagine, self-described tree huggers were not pleased, but I’ll let Brean have the (second) last word:

All of this might be fine if religions had a history of rational scientific inquiry and peaceful, tolerant implementation of their beliefs. As it is, however, many religions, environmentalism included, continue to struggle with the curse of literalism, and the resultant extremism.

My last thought: let’s not forget to include scientism in the above! Where scientism was the alternative religion of modernity, in postmodernity it has been supplanted by environmentalism. The fascination comes from watching science become more and more esoteric as its high priests fight to retain their high gnostic status.

Welcome to Godly Science. In this blog and website I want to explore the relationship between science and Christian faith. As someone who has had a career in both areas and is still passionate about both, I would like to look at ways in which science and Christian faith can enhance and build on each other, as well as where they appear to come into conflict.

I say ‘appear’ here intentionally, because both science and faith are endeavours which try to uncover ultimate truth. If they truly conflict, then one or both has not found the truth in that area, and this is important to understand if such truth is to be discovered. In this postmodern age where ‘truth’ seems to be more and more devalued, this must be worth doing.

I welcome comments on the posts here, and will set up a discussion group if it seems warranted.

Enjoy!