1

Personal Position Paper: The relationship between Social Science and Christianity

Steven Schapansky Student Number: 33540 Box Number: 302 Providence University College, Canada

Submitted to Valerie Hiebert, Ph.D. (cand.)

20 March 2013

Social science and Christianity are often intertwined yet contradict each other by having one piece relate to another and sometimes even considered a mere appendage of the other. However, there is a complex, fragile, and varying epistemology that originates in both social sciences and Christianity. For example, Charles A. Ellwood argues that a new hope has come into the world - - that science may unite with religion in the work of redeeming mankind; that thus we of this generation may discover a new synthesis of aspiration with knowledge (1923:1). No sooner is the hope of this new synthesis proposed than objections are heard within and without the church. We are told that science and religion are unrelated activities of the human mind; that science cannot be in any sense a basis for religion; that they deal with entirely different and unrelated realms of experience. In correspondence to Ellwoods ideas, this essay will articulate my personal position on the relationship between social science and Christianity. In doing this, it will take into account the nature of knowledge and humanity with the main theme being that of individual worldviews. There is overwhelming evidence throughout history that social science and Christianity have been at odds. If this concept is foreign, one would simply need to walk into a church in south-eastern Manitoba and suggest: Jesus wants to break down all the fear-based walls that divide people Jews and Samaritans, men and women, blacks and whites, heterosexuals and homosexuals from one another, so they can live in love, acceptance, and fellowship (Smith 2011). The response would likely demonstrate the tension being demonstrated in the current debate of Bill 18, which will be used as a later example within this essay. Moreover, the hope of social science and Christianity uniting is confined to a few pioneering minds at work within the fields either of religion or of science. Yet it has begun to spread to those who are engaged in solving the practical problems of our world. Therefore, when the churches shall welcome

wholeheartedly social science as an ally, we shall experience a religious revival such as the world has never seen before (Ellwood 1923). As stated, this essay will provide a systematic overview of the relationship between social science and Christianity and the vital role of individual worldviews. The concept of epistemology is therefore crucial to this development and must be understood properly. Philosophers have long concerned themselves with the possibilities and limitations of human knowledge. The sub discipline of philosophy that is dedicated to the study of the grounds and

nature of knowledge is epistemology. David Entwistle argues that epistemology is to what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the possible extent to which a given subject or entity can be known. Thus, it is concerned with whether or not our knowledge claims can stand the test of scrutiny (2010:76). As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? Understanding epistemology with this sagacity will hopefully envelop the perspectives and conclusions this essay will demonstrate. To discuss what the sources of epistemology are is to look deep into an individuals worldview. Everyone has a worldview a window through which he or she views the world, framed by the assumptions and beliefs that color what he or she sees (Entwistle 2010:55). Therefore, ones worldview is the fundamental building block which, inescapably, both focuses and distorts our understanding of the world and our place within it. Worldviews ask the questions: Who am I? Where am I? Whats wrong? and Whats the remedy? Consequently the nature of knowledge and humanity are founded in our worldviews (Walsh and Middleton 1984).

In his study of psychology and Christianity Entwistle outlines five main religious worldviews. First, Animism is related to the phenomenon known as syncretism. Rather than changing worldviews, Animists assimilate elements of a foreign worldview into their existing worldview. An example of this would include missionaries who struggle when indigenous people begin praying to Jesus but still utilize the services of a witch doctor. A second major worldview is Polytheism. Many people of ancient or non-industrialized countries hold this worldview. Polytheists see a vast host of spirits as the cause of light, life, or language. Polytheists perceive a hierarchy of gods, each of whom is powerful in a limited domain. In the Eastern world, we find the third worldview. Pantheism is the belief that everything that exists is part of a great oneness, the one god that is everything, is in everything. In this view, life is cyclical, with a never-ending succession of birth, death, and rebirth (Entwistle 2010). A fourth major worldview is monotheism. There are three major monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These religions share not only one common belief that there is only one God, but they also share elements of religious history and literature. God is seen as the moving and sustaining force behind the world, and He is without peer. Nothing is seen as having existence that is not derived from Him. Within the last several decades we find the fifth and last worldview, called postmodernism. Postmodern critics highlight the potential of individuals and groups who possess political and economic power to install their own views of reality as the correct ones and suppress the voices of the less powerful (Entwistle 2010). With these five worldviews laid out, it is important look within and acknowledge ones personal worldview. It is important to note however, worldviews do not often change easily or suddenly, and an initial reaction upon confronting a worldview different from our own is usually defensive. The following section examines the implications of our worldviews.

A community of belief does not universally make it correct. Christian Smith argues, all around the world and across history, different believing communities have supposed as starting points very different, often incompatible sets of assumptions and beliefs (2003:49). Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of worldviews has implications for our thinking in fundamental ways. First when rival worldviews meet, misunderstanding and condemnation are common. Conflict between worldviews usually stem from incompatibility at the assumptive level. For instance, if one assumes women should not hold positions of authority within society and the church, then the talk of women playing a crucial role in the rise of Christianity and holding positions of honor and authority seems absurd (Stark 1996). A second implication of the fact that we all hold worldviews is, perhaps more troubling. It must be admitted that worldviews are less chosen than inherited. From the moment we are born, our views of the world are shaped by the culture and subcultures within which we are raised. Our families, religious traditions, educational institutions, media, and a host of other forces instill within us assumptions about the world and our place within it. We are far less aware of these pressures than we may imagine or wish (Entwistle 2010). Most people tend to live in relatively small worlds, in the subcultures and social circles with which they are most at home and comfortable. There is a minimal amount of people who rise above their cultural worldviews to challenge issues such as slavery, gender issues, racism, sexual orientation, or a multitude of other societal ailments. It is humbling to consider how many incorrect beliefs we have adopted and how many immoral actions we engaged in because of how deeply assimilated they are in our own worldviews (Entwistle 2010:62). The previous discussion has articulated the importance of worldviews. Worldviews are the primary element of ones epistemological understanding. In addition ones worldviews

depict what actions and reactions will consist of in any given situation. This understanding is central to commence a discussion of the relationship between social science and Christianity. The social sciences are the fields of academic scholarship that explore aspects of human society and the relationships of individuals within a society. Social science is commonly used as an umbrella term to refer to a plurality of fields outside of the natural sciences. Social sciences include the focuses of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. As stated earlier, social science and Christianity have been at odds throughout history and continue to struggle. The following section is dedicated to the relationship between social science and Christianity, keeping in mind the previous dialogue of worldviews. To understand the roots and supporting factors of any conflict, it is necessary to comprehend the worldviews of the adversaries. Thus, worldviews drastically shape and influence ones reaction to the relationship of social science and Christianity. In The Journal for the Sociological Integration of Religion and Society, contemporary sociologist Dennis Hiebert writes an article titled The Community, Courage, and Compassion of the Christian Sociologist, which observes that Sometimes religious traditions are used to obstruct inquiry rather than encourage it, because some religious educators fear truth rather than welcome it in all its forms. And it is fear not ignorance, which is the enemy of learning; fear is what gives ignorance its power. To pursue truth honestly is to embark on a brave adventure of mind and heart involving risk. To be an authentic student requires courage, and it is only an authentic spirituality that opens us to truth, whatever it may be, wherever it may take us. (Hiebert 2012:18) Related to Hieberts scholarship, Entwistle (2010), along with describing worldviews, does an excellent job of distinguishing four models in the relationship between social science and Christianity. These four models are labeled: Enemies, Spies or Colonialists, Neutral Parties, and Allies. In the relationship of Enemies, social science and Christianity are at complete odds with

each other. Some people, including a multitude of psychological theorists, reject religion because of bad personal experiences with religiously committed individuals. Similarly, many Christians who oppose psychology often single out Sigmund Freud as the central figure of psychology and as the embodiment of its antireligious belief (Entwistle 2010). A direct conflict and dissimilarity arises due to these conflicting worldviews. A tragic example of the Enemy model is demonstrated by John MacArthur and his Southern California congregation of nearly 20,000 attendees at Grace Community Church. Sadly, a young man named Kenneth Nally committed suicide after receiving biblical counselling from several church pastors. Simply, MacArthur believes that Scripture can effectively function as a counseling text. A common element in MacArthurs approach is to cite a portion of Scripture, out of context, and to read into it broader implications than the context allow (Entwistle 2010:169). This idea falls directly in line with Christian Smiths (2011) ten points describing Biblicism, in his book The Bible Made Impossible. MacArthurs comments suggest that he is convinced that mental illness unless it has a physical cause is ultimately and exclusively a spiritual issue (Entwistle 2010:174). Evidently within the Enemies model psychology and Christianity hold rival worldviews. MacArthur ultimately fails to see any way that Christianity could constructively engage psychology or profit from its resources (Entwistle 2010). MacArthur is immersed in the rhetoric of the dark ages, the primitive dogma, and edicts of his particular religious worldview. Between the outermost categories of Enemies and Allies reside the models of Spies or Colonialists, and Neutral Parties. Entwistle describes both central figures by the following: Spies largely avoid the hostilities of the Enemies model, but they tend to be psychologically reductionists and to ignore or water down the theological content of religious systems. Their tactic is to abstract from religious systems those psychological factors that contribute to mental well-being. Colonialists staunchly declare their

allegiance to their theological Sovereign, but typically engage psychology through theological dominance, a failure to distinguish theological interpretation from biblical fact, and abdication of the methods and breadth of psychology as a discipline. The Neutral Parties model manages to avoid theological imperialism and to engage in a conversation that has the potential to align theological and psychological conclusions, but it fails to provide a holistic understanding of human behavior. (Entwistle 2010:202) The fourth model is that of Allies. This model is ultimately the goal, and brings about the best results. The Allies model explores whether social science and Christianity are capable of a dynamic integration. For the application process of these two one must understand a proper definition of integration. This essay defines integration as the act or process of making whole or entire; thus the process of fitting two items together in order to make one orderly functioning entity. Integration can take various forms including: Worldview Integration, Foundational Integration, Disciplinary and Scholarly Integration, Applied Integration, and Public and Personal Integration. By applying these various integration principles psychology and Christian Theology can be seen for what they are. Both are concerned with human nature and functioning but utilizing different methods and source materials (Entwistle 2010:217-220). Though these are brief summaries of each model hopefully a sense is gained for what each takes away from, or provides to, the relationship between social science and Christianity. Additionally, there is hope that the past discussions have connected the proverbial dots of the relationship between worldviews in regards to social science and Christianity. This essay finds the model of Allies to be the best fit, while the Enemies model the most destructive. Without a doubt society has found practicing the Enemies model to be most common while only a select few minds are grasping at the Allies model. The remainder of this essay will explore a current example within our society that depicts both models in action. A year after a bitter fight in Ontario, Manitobans are now engaged in the same hot debate over bullying in schools, especially when it comes to homosexual students. The confrontation

has set proponents of Bill 18, which amends Manitoba's Public Schools Act to include provisions against bullying and specifically sanctions gay-straight alliances in schools, against church groups who see it as an infringement on religious freedom. The proposed legislation covers bullying on school grounds and in cyberspace, including after school hours, and entrenches the school's responsibility in dealing with it. Under the Bill, students are allowed to set up organizations and hold activities to promote issues like gender equality, anti-racism, awareness of those with disabilities and understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity. They can use the term gay-straight alliance or any other name that is consistent with the promotion of a positive school environment that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils (Mertl 20130). As anyone who followed the fight over similar legislation passed in Ontario knows, the Manitoba bill set off alarm bells among some religious groups. They see it as a potential threat to the values underpinning faith-based schools. The town of Steinbach has become a focal point of the debate. Pastor Ray Duerksen of Steinbach's Southland Church, a non-denominational, prayer-based ministry, seemed to be in full sky-is-falling mode when he said in a sermon last month that Bill 18 is the biggest challenge the Canadian church has ever faced. Its going to be the beginning of an incremental attempt to destroy the Christian church. Thats whats taking place. Thats the agenda behind the scene" (Mertl 2013). Worldviews, the Enemies model, and the Allies model are all directly connected to Bill 18. Every single Christian arguing against Bill 18 is arguing their worldview belief. Let us remember that this worldview is not chosen but rather it is inherited. The majority of individuals arguing against the Bill have in fact not even seen or read the Bill themselves. Therefore, they are blindly arguing a belief they hold to be inherently true yet it was originally created by the culture and subcultures in which they were raised; which is obviously in contrast with a surplus

10

of other worldviews. Dialogue between individuals who hold differing worldviews must begin by talking about the assumptions inherent in their respective worldviews. Certain churches and individuals in Southeastern Manitoba have done well to disregard the worldviews of anyone involved in the debate of Bill 18. Lashing out in protest that religious freedom is in jeopardy is simply not the answer, nor is it even relevant to the topic of Bill 18. Nobody is connecting the dots. The issue is not religious freedom. The issue is that some people think being gay is a sin, and thus we cannot have clubs in our schools promoting sin. Ultimately this is completely opposite of what Jesus Christ would have done. Jesus always took the side of the poor, the outcast, the oppressed, and the marginalized, often at the expense of the religious leaders who followed the rules. In this case, who is on the fringe? This is where Christians need to consider the worldviews of others. Folks did not have an encounter with Jesus and walk away saying, Man, he sure does not like gay folks. In fact Jesus never mentioned homosexuality; His main concerns were and are the poor, homeless, and the sick. Maybe instead of a seventeen million dollar addition to a local church those funds could go to aiding Jesus Christs main concerns. I digress, a lot of people, particularly Christians have missed the point, and the point of the Bill is about bullying, protecting kids, and stopping this activity in schools. Not all Christians put their worldviews in the same place, and our worldviews cannot and should not be used as weapons. This is exactly what the Enemies model depicts. This is exactly where social science and Christianity are at in the church of Southeastern Manitoba. It should be noted that the Romans were not able to destroy Christianity, the Russians could not destroy Christianity, the Nazis could not, Communism is not able to destroy Christianity, the Chinese government cannot do it, North Korea cannot do it, and the Iranian

11

government has been unable to destroy Christianity (Marchand 2013). So if we give kids the freedom to have a gay and lesbian group in school, even a Christian school, this will bring down Christianity in Canada? Is this an attack against our religious freedom or is this an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate grace and kindness? Is this an incremental attempt to destroy the church or is this an opportunity for Christians to be at the forefront of supporting efforts to respect diversity and fundamental human rights (Marchand 2013)? There is little progress in the model of Enemies; we need to strive for the model of the Allies. Evangelical biblical scholar Kenton Sparks aids this discussion, At face value, Scripture does not seem to furnish us with one divine theology; it gives us numerous theologies. . . The Bible does not offer a single, well-integrated univocal theology; it offers instead numerous overlapping but nonetheless distinctive theologies (2008:203)! Our obligation as Christians is to think. God asks us to renew our minds and to engage in constructive thought. This is the key; this is the route to a model we should strive for, a model of Allies. Christians should not want to be known as people who will not have dialogue with people who are different than themselves. Christians should strive to learn, grow, and think with others like us and others unlike us. This is what will advance the kingdom of God. That is the vessel these school groups could accomplish. In conclusion, through every human institution and practice human moral order is rooted in historical narratives, traditions, and worldviews that orient human actors (Smith 2003:23). Our worldviews allow us to engage with others in four main models and instinctively our uneducated minds find the model of the Enemies. However, in order for social science and Christianity to flourish one must be educated and willing to lay his/her worldviews down in order to effectively engage with anothers worldviews. One must then believe and live out the

12

words of Dennis Hiebert, The Spiritual goal of knowledge is not control or power, it is love (2012). This essay agrees and concludes with the words of Albert Einstein I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. (Bucky 1992:85)

REFERENCES Bucky, Peter A. 1992. The Private Albert Einstein. Kansas City: Andrews & McMeel.

13

Ellwood, Charles A. 1923. Christianity and Social Science: A Challenge to the Church. New York: The Macmillan Company. Entwistle, David N. 2010. Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: An Introduction to Worldview Issues, Philosophical Foundations, and Models of Integration. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books. Hiebert, Dennis. 2012. The Community, Courage, and Compassion of the Christian Sociologist. The Journal for the sociological Integration of Religion and Society, Vol 2, No. 2:15-22. Marchand, Chris. 2013. Here I Stand: Final Sermon in the Guardrails Series. Niverville Community Fellowship, March 17. Retrieved March 19, 2013 (http://www.nivcf.ca/#/about-ncf/welcome). Mertl, Steve. 2013. Manitobans Divided Over Anti-Bullying Bill that sanctions Gay-Straight Alliances in Schools. Yahoo News Canada, March 18. Retrieved March 19, 2013 (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/manitobans-divided-over-anti-bullying-billsanctions-gay-181701354.html). Smith, Christian. 2003. Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, Christian. 2011. The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press. Sparks, Kenton. 2008. Gods Word in Human Words. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Stark, Rodney. 1996. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. New York: Harper One Publishers. Walsh, Brian J., & Middleton, Richard J. 1984. The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press.