Nicholas Kristof: I am Smart, Evangelicals are not. (But I am not denigrating anyone¬â„s beliefs!)

I like Nicholas Kristof. I’ve interviewed him. He’s from Yam Hill, Oregon and I was born in Portland, Oregon, good geographic roots to say the least. He has lived abroad and his insights on geopolitical issues are often useful. To his credit, he is one few editorialists who understands the importance of religion as a dominant and shaping force in the 21st century.

Alas, his interpretation of religion’s significance is severely flawed. The problem starts with an uncritical acceptance of “scientific certitude,” which when applied by liberal theologians to the miracle accounts of scripture resulted in a relegation of ALL these accounts to matters of faith to be believed as opposed to actual events. To Kristoff these liberals are the intellectual, ‘acceptable’ religionists, and he is dismayed by today’s America, where 83% believe in the virgin birth and only 28% believe in evolution.

He seems unaware that the steadfast confidence in ¢â‚¬Ëœevolution,’ a term he uses in vague and undefined ways, has been shaken not just by “evangelicals” on a theological basis, but by scientists as a result of doing good science. Award-winning journalist, Larry Witham documents this masterfully in a new book, “By Design,” which chronicles the erosion of confidence in major aspects of Darwinian “evolution” across virtually every scientific discipline.

Kristoff’s unquestioning embrace of “evolution” is matched by a naƒ¯ve endorsement of liberal theology as “intellectual,” and a dismissal of evangelical belief as “less intellectual and more mystical.” Describing evangelicals in this way is tempting if one forms their perception of evangelicalism on sound bites from fundamentalists “Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell,” but it is not an accurate portrayal of even their ilk. Way back in February 1993, Washington Post writer Michael Weisskopf learned this the hard way, when he glibly and inaccurately described their followers as “poor, uneducated, and easily led.” His comments were so out-of-touch with reality that none other than David Broder himself confessed to me that it was the Post that was uneducated when it came to evangelicals. The paper ran a correction (Correction: An article yesterday characterized followers of television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “largely poor, uneducated and easy to command.” There is no factual basis for that statement. (Published 2/2/93).

Such a caricature is even less fitting of the broader world of evangelicals in America, who are more educated than the general population, and are engaged in vigorous dialogue about ideas that matter. It is hard to imagine Kristoff, given the learning opportunity provided to his craft in 1993, would still be operating with such an insufficient and stereotypical view. It damages his credibility as a serious observer of the American religious scene.

Kristoff’s smug comments send the message, “I am smart, you are not.” He bemoans the loss of influence of liberal Protestant (and Catholic) influence because he seems to think they are people an intellectual could do business with! He seems to yearn for the importation of a faithless European worldview into an America.

He says “The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.” His own work as a journalist would be enhanced if he would aggressively seek to understand and explain something he confesses he does not profess to understand (but should) namely, “why is America so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of the world?”

Today’s NYT column illustrates what I mean.

Believe It, or Not
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Today marks the Roman Catholics’ Feast of the Assumption, honoring the moment that they believe God brought the Virgin Mary into Heaven. So here’s a fact appropriate for the day: Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent).

So this day is an opportunity to look at perhaps the most fundamental divide between America and the rest of the industrialized world: faith. Religion remains central to American life, and is getting more so, in a way that is true of no other industrialized country, with the possible exception of South Korea.

Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. In contrast, other developed countries overwhelmingly believe that it is not necessary. In France, only 13 percent agree with the U.S. view. (For details on the polls cited in this column, go to www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds.)

The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time. The percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth actually rose five points in the latest poll.

My grandfather was fairly typical of his generation: A devout and active Presbyterian elder, he nonetheless believed firmly in evolution and regarded the Virgin Birth as a pious legend. Those kinds of mainline Christians are vanishing, replaced by evangelicals. Since 1960, the number of Pentecostalists has increased fourfold, while the number of Episcopalians has dropped almost in half.

The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America.

Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, “So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions.” On the other side, there are attitudes like those on a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this way:

“God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled and hanging chads may also be because of God’s intervention on those who were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God’s choice.”

The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary’s assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. As the Catholic theologian Hans Kƒ¼ng puts it in “On Being a Christian,” the Virgin Birth is a “collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary” narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world.

Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book “Mary Through the Centuries” that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark’s gospel, the first to be written, or Paul’s letter to the Galatians) don’t mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel).

Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.

I’m not denigrating anyone’s beliefs. And I don’t pretend to know why America is so much more infused with religious faith than the rest of the world. But I do think that we’re in the middle of another religious Great Awakening, and that while this may bring spiritual comfort to many, it will also mean a growing polarization within our society.

But mostly, I’m troubled by the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic. I worry partly because of the time I’ve spent with self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams, for the Islamic world is in crisis today in large part because of a similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition and toward the mystical. The heart is a wonderful organ, but so is the brain.

‚© CRS Communications, Dick Staub 2003

Posted in News, Staublog in August 15, 2003 by | No Comments »

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

3 + = 11

More from Staublog