WHEN humanity is considered from a global perspective it is easily perceived that men are strongly biased creatures thinking, acting, and seeing in accordance with their respective patterns of culture, and apprehensive of that which is foreign in thought, deed, or race.
When confronted with certain stimuli it is nearly impossible for most men to react rationally. H. G. Wells described the loyal ties of a certain botanist as follows:
He has a strong feeling for systematic botanists as against plant physiologists, whom he regards as lewd and evil scoundrels in this relation; but he has a strong feeling for all botanists and indeed all biologists, as against physicists, and those who pro fess the exact sciences, all of whom he regards as dull, mechanical, ugly-minded scoundrels in this relation; but he has a strong feeling for all who profess what he calls science, as against psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, and literary men, whom he regards as wild, foolish, immoral scoundrels in this relation; but he has a strong feeling for all educated men as against the working man, whom he regards as cheating, lying, loafing, drunken, thievish, dirty scoundrels in this relation; but as soon as the working man is comprehended together with these others, as ENGLISHMEN ... he holds them superior to all sorts of Europeans, whom he regards . . .
Christ has called us to rise above the diversity of earthly custom and prejudice and to break the bonds of culture. As we approach the Divine perspective the colored glasses of culture are removed, and our biases fall away.
This, of course, does not mean that the inspired message that God has entrusted to this people is to be placed down on the level of man's discoveries and systems for comparison as of equal with equal. And it certainly does not mean that we can safely demand that our feeble minds understand completely before we accept a "Thus saith the Lord."
Faith demands that we continue to believe in the incomparable superiority of our God and His truth whether our limited faculties can "prove" all that He says or not. God does have the right to ask us to trust Him even where our only apparent reason for trust is the fact that it is He who has asked it!
But there is danger in confusing our own thoughts with the undebatables that God has given us. Provincialism and institutionalism are often largely the products of man's inventiveness, and these can be come a hindrance to intelligent witness. Unfortunately, there are many Christians whose outlook is still confined to the narrow spectrum of their hometown, village, or nation. They have not been able to gain the vantage ground that would allow them to eat with publicans, leave father and mother, and fellowship with Gentiles. They remain culture-bound and if they do go to Gentiles, it is only to certain selected ones.
This deficiency may be explained by the consideration that there are many Christians but perhaps not very many mature Christians.
Loaded Words
People can often be taught to hate per sons or objects they know little about if certain words are cleverly introduced and associated with these persons or objects. This is the basis for hate propaganda the world around. Even to many Seventh-day Adyentists certain words have become so loaded with emotional overtones that, when confronted with their sounds, rational thinking fails and feelings of hostility develop.
I offer as examples the words Catholicism and evolution. In their hearing many Seventh-day Adventists become more interested in condemning and destroying than in offering a saving message to all peoples.
From the elevated viewpoint of mature Christianity, classifications and categories break down, and with their passing we no longer see black, white, yellow, red, Catholic, Moslem, or evolutionist; but we see human brothers and potential sons of God, and we stand together in the open air of a universal fellowship. It requires unearthly wisdom to grasp and maintain the significance of the Adventist message as a truly worldwide message--a message to all people--to majority groups, as well as minority groups.
Is it not more in line with our high calling to work for the evolutionists and to demonstrate love toward them, than to continually condemn them and thus build up a storehouse of emotional hostilities?
Fortunately, the same Adventist scientist or theologian who tells monkey jokes from the pulpit and vigorously proclaims that he cannot possibly see how any reasonably intelligent man can believe in the theory of evolution this same man will usually lose his hostility (or greatly sup press it) when he meets a real live evolutionist. He may even eat dinner with him and decide that this particular evolutionist is of at least average intelligence. But evolutionists in general are still considered low-minded, bad rascals. And if the power of Elijah were his, he would consume them all with holy fire all except that one with whom he ate dinner. That one was different, and should, of course, be spared.
Evangelists, Take Care
It is my observation that evangelists are often quite tactless, discourteous, and unloving toward evolutionists. And unfortunately they are not only discourteous, but are many times grossly inaccurate in presenting scientific facts. (Of course, there are exceptions, but I fear they really are exceptions!)
Certainly we cannot expect all ministers to be highly trained in science. But if they do not have good scientific training they should not talk much about science in public meetings.
I have a mimeographed copy of a sermon on "Creation and Evolution" presented by a well-known evangelist. Copies were given out at the exits after the meeting. It begins by stating, "Scientists are nowadays peering through the electron microscope at the atoms."
It is perhaps trivial to point out that scientists do not look through an electron microscope (electrons are "shot" through a metal tube under high voltage and later a "picture," made from impressions on a metal plate, can be observed). It is not quite so trivial, though, to realize that scientists do not, even with this remarkable instrument, obtain pictures of atoms.
Later, mention is made of the fact that dogs always produce dogs, cats always produce cats, et cetera. Then the question is asked: "If we are going to see changes why do we not see them in the fruit fly, as it produces many offspring in a short time? Every housewife knows that the fruit fly can produce seven generations of off spring in twenty-four hours."
The housewife may know it, but the scientists do not. The shortest life cycles of fruit flies known to science are ten to twelve days!
Then there is the speaker who, after stirring the emotions of the audience and sharing a couple of jokes at the expense of the evolutionists, pounds the pulpit and proclaims, "There's not a scrap of evidence for evolution!"
Such a statement is made only when reason is blinded by prejudice.
There is considerable evidence for the theory of evolution, just as there is considerable evidence for the theory of special Creation. But to say there is not a scrap of evidence for evolution is hardly justified.
Perhaps the speaker meant there is no proof for evolution, but I find it incredulous that educated men do not know the difference between evidence and proof.
When a man is on trial it often happens that evidence is presented to find him innocent. And at the same time evidence is presented to find him guilty. We could assume that if a hundred lawyers were allowed to work against one the hundred might produce a lot of evidence, regardless of whether their client was guilty or not. The amount of evidence does not provide a certain guide to the truth.
Certainly the evolutionists cannot fit all the observable facts into the theory of evolution. They are confronted with some perplexing problems. But neither can the special creationists fit all the observable facts into their theory. They too are confronted with some perplexing problems.
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the existing perplexities on both sides of the issue, but it is expedient to state that both sides do face perplexities and do have evidence to support them.
I have presented three specific examples taken from one sermon. And I intend them only as examples. Inaccuracies of this type are common in an alarming number of science sermons. I, along with many of my Seventh-day Adventist colleagues, am reluctant to invite "outside" scientists to evangelistic meetings for fear they will be subjected to ridiculous "scientific" statements and to ridicule as evolutionists.
I have heard it argued that we should not be concerned with the specifics as long as the principle is correct. But how can we place confidence in the main thesis when the specifics are badly contorted? Perhaps 95 per cent of the audience will not know the difference, but is that any merit to the speaker?
Employ Only Sound Arguments
Mrs. White says: It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound arguments, that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching scrutiny. Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 708.
At Middle East College in Beirut, Lebanon, Seventh-day Adventist workers were given a course in Islamics, with the objective of making them better able to work among the Moslems (more than 95 percent of the people in the Middle East are Moslems).
Is this not in keeping with the injunction of Paul that we should be "all things to all people"? If we are to work effectively with Moslems we need to understand them, and if we are to work effectively with evolutionists, do we not also need an under standing of them?
According to J. S. Mill there is another reason for doing some homework on evolution:
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and none may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.
This is not to suggest that we do not attempt to guard young minds against theories we consider objectionable, but the mature creationist should confront the facts squarely and feel the weight of the opposition. He should have an intimate acquaintance with evolution if he is to talk about it, and especially if he is to talk against it.
When dealing publicly with the subject of evolution it would be better to err on the side of caution and say too little, rather than to speak boldly without adequate scientific training. And as educators and ministers we should make a decided effort to be more considerate of evolutionists and to relate to them as Jesus related to those whose philosophies differed from His own.
This does not mean we have to agree with evolution. Certainly we can disagree, but we must learn how to disagree in a more agreeable way.
