Underestimating biblical literalists--A small-sample narrative

[Goblinmonger]

So I teach an Honors British Literature class with 20 of the top kids in their grade (Juniors). We are in British Romanticism right now (LOVE the poetry). As a pre-write, they needed to write an essay that answers the question, "What does nature mean to me?" Of the 20, five of them expressly said some version of "God created ______ so we could appreciate the beauty." For all the talk on here of the new theology and how liberal Christians don't believe these things, I think that is, to some extent, sticking your head in the sand. I don't teach in the bible belt. These are kids that I know are politically liberal. I know you can dismiss this as the ignorance of youth, but they are getting it from somewhere. I know the churches they attend. They aren't Southern Baptist. They are mainline Protestant religions.

Just struck me as interesting as I was reading it.

To be fair, another five of the students had clearly atheist statements in their writing, which is something that would NOT have happened when I started teaching over 20 years ago.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. In a lot of the "mainline" churches, the congregations

are substantially more conservative than their well-educated pastors, and the pastors have to keep the theistic stuff coming in order to meet expectations.

Also, guess what sort of people are likely to teach Sunday School in those churches.

[Goblinmonger]

2. We often hear that the stance of the RCC is not what people really believe.

When churches are criticized, people on DU (not aimed at you) are very vocal that it isn't what really is happening. That the people in the seats think differently. As someone who went to a RCC seminary and is still friends with a lot of priests, I know that the views of the individual priests are often very different than the pope. But this seems to be an instance of showing that what the people in the seats actually think and it is being underestimated by those that want to separate from the literalists. I just don't think they get to have it both ways. We can't say the hierarchy of the church doesn't matter when the hierarchy does shitty things and that they do matter when we like their views.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I'm not defending the Catholics or any other churches.

I was merely reporting what I think is the case. Personally, I think it would behoove those mainline Prods (UCC, Methodists, some Episcopals, etc.) to start leading their flocks toward enlightenment--which is to say, toward political liberalization.

[LiberalLoner]

7. ELCA is doing just that. But congregations are rebelling and leaving ELCA. It's a hard thing to

try to pull people into enlightenment. Sometimes they REALLY resist.

[Goblinmonger]

12. I wasn't implying you were. Sorry.

I was talking about others that post/reply in DU and using your statement as a springboard. I tried to include that in my response, but clearly failed.

[Leontius]

3. So what's your point with this that to mention God implies ignorance ?

How about including parts of what they wrote not "some version of" it so people can see for themselves and make their own judgements about these students view of nature and its relation to God and creation.

[cbayer]

9. agree

[Goblinmonger]

10. I never said anything about ignorance.

My point was pretty clear in the OP. Many people here do not want to believe that members of mainline Protestant religions are literalists that believe in creationism. Seems that is actually the case based on my small sample.

Here's one "As a believer in God, I think he created flowers to give the earth color and life"

[Leontius]

21. You did seem to make the connection with the "youthful ignorance" part but I'll take that was not

your intent or the point of your post as you say. I believe that God created this universe in all its beauty, wonder, mystery and complexity, does that make me a creationist?

[Goblinmonger]

28. Yes, you are a creationist, then.

You think a supernatural being created the universe. Doesn't make you a young earth creationist (don't know your thoughts on that), but you are a creationist. Just ask rug. He agrees.

[Leontius]

29. Thanks for mentioning the difference, certain people like to confuse the two ideas

of a creation to make it seem as if everyone who does believe in a God created universe is a YEC. For the record I'm not one of them, the earth is at least 7,000 yrs old not 6,000 like those crazies claim.

[On the Road]

4. Well, if You're Asking the "Meaning" of Nature,

you are embedding a kind of intentionality in the question. You can't be surprised if students respond with a stereotypical religious seentiment. From your description, I doubt most of them mean it in the most literal sense.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Maybe

But I didn't ask for the meaning of nature. I asked what it meant to them. And I have a hard time thinking that "God made flowers so we could see beautiful things" is anything other than literal.

[Thats my opinion]

6. At the dawn of Biblical criticism a hundred years ago,

a leading Biblical scholar presented a view of the Pentateuch holding that it was not written by Moses, but developed over a long period of time from several sources, One student responded, "But it will take a hundred years for our people to accept that!"

"Well" said the professor, "We had better get started this morning."
A hundred years have passed and this notion is now the center of seminary teaching on the subject, and slowly people in the pews are finally getting it. What is now happening in theology is making an impact, but it is not surprising that we are still at the beginning of this theological, scientific epoch.

[dmallind]

14. His point however is that most believers are at the beginning. It is true.

I can't say I've seen polls on the understanding of multiple source documents, but based on surveys about much simpler and more basic questions of belief, I think it's fair to assume that the two biggest answers for "who wrote the first five books of the Bible would be "God" and "Moses" in that order, with many of the latter smug in their assumed sophistication.

I doubt 1% of the population even knows what JEPD means in this context, and that's far from the height of advanced knowledge.

EDIT closest I could find is here with 40% of Protestants believing the Bible is the literal word for word work of God, 48% believing it was inspired by God, and only 11% believing it was an amalgam of history fables and legends compiled gy humans alone....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx

[Thats my opinion]

16. I don't doubt your statistics.

Cultural norms change slowly.

I wonder how much time it took for the average European to accept that Copernicus and not Ptolemy best understood the relationship between the sun and the earth. That doesn't mean that ridicule is more helpful than encouragement and education.

[Goblinmonger]

15. I understand what you are saying, but

I then think it is kind of missing the point for some on DU to say "don't lump us in with those RW crazies" then, when the reality is that a lot of mainline, liberal religious are still at the beginning.

[tama]

22. Is the poin kin

to not lumping all atheists in with "those pseudoskeptics"?

When the reality might as well be a "beginners mind"?

[Silent3]

11. Does the rest of the wording sound Biblically literal?

Many non-fundamentalist Christians (and other non-fundamentalists, for that matter) hold to the idea that God created the world without being Biblically literal about it. They accept the theory of evolution, but see God acting through evolution, perhaps guiding it.

Not that I buy into any of this myself, but it's certainly possible to believe in natural beauty created by God without also believing it was done in seven days with talking snakes thrown in.

[Goblinmonger]

13. I didn't get into that discussion with the students

and won't, really, because it isn't in the scope of the assignment and that is just thin ice for me to walk on, imho. But I understand what you are saying.

[rug]

17. You're calling a simple statement of belief literalism.

To believe - and to say - that God created the universe is a statement of belief, not a statement about a plaster cast of a human footprint next to an allosaurus footprint.

[Goblinmonger]

19. I've been scolded on here about lumping creationists

as all being young earth creationists. I don't see how I did that in my OP. The students specifically said that "God created X." That, to me, is creationism.

[rug]

20. A belief in a Creator is, per se, creationism.

But it is not necessarily biblical literalism, which is what you referred to in your OP.

[Goblinmonger]

27. Tell that to Leonitus up above who seems to disagree.

I meant bibilical literalism in the sense that when they said "God made it" they meant the Christian God of the bible creating things like it says in the beginning of the bible. I did not intend it to be young earth creationists (though they could or could not be that--I have no idea). But they are clearly taking the "god created heaven and earth" part of the OT literally to make the statements that they did.

[Thats my opinion]

30. I have never felt you lumped all creationists as young earth sorts. nt

[Evoman]

18. People get as vague as is necessary to defend their religion.

They'll back up to a "God is the universe" type theology if that's what is necessary to defend their theology, but sometimes it's pretty obvious that deep down inside, they really do have a "old man in the sky" conception of god. Why go to a mainline church otherwise?

I don't expect consistency in religious people.

[tama]

23. To me that sounded

like you were describing a consistency in religious people.

[Silent3]

24. Only if you count a predictable pattern of inconsistency...

...as a type of consistency.

[Thats my opinion]

31. I get arxound a whsole lot, and

it is not obvious top me that down deep they have an old man in the sky conception of God. i find a growing capacity to dig deeper than that.

[skepticscott]

32. In what denominations do you find this

"growing capacity"? And what exactly does it mean to "dig deeper"? Is that concept of "our father, who art in heaven" totally wrong, based on your best evidence?

[cbayer]

25. Have you never marveled at the beauty of nature?

If that astonishment includes a person's belief in a god or gods, that doesn't indicate biblical literalism. All it means is that the person is a theist. Your assumption that belief in a god is ignorance of youth may be the problem.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Yep, I have.

And I have never thought that God put it here for me to have something pretty to look at.

And I put the "ignorance of youth" in there as a preemptive statement for people on here that will say that these kids don't really understand the religion that they are a part of. It had nothing to do with their belief in god being ignorant.