Economic Savior, Part 1: New Calvinism vs. New Scientist
Two weeks ago, Time released their second annual “10 Most Powerful Ideas” issue, which lists the top ten ideas affecting the country over the last year. The third most powerful idea was “New Calvinism.” In a time of social and economic instability, Americans have once again returned to the Church for comfort. After 9/11, news agencies reported a similar flocking back to religious centers, but this time is a little different.
Calvinism is an attractive understanding of Christianity because it emphasizes a sovereign God who is the author of history. He is in control of and sustaining the world despite the suffering or hardship that may characterize life upon it. To know that God, who is both loving and sovereign, is still working His will in the world brings great comfort to those who struggle to find hope in an uncertain economic future. This is one reason why Christianity is growing exponentially in third world countries and places where the faith is persecuted (like China, which now has more Christians than any other country in the world).
The Calvinist ranks include such notable pastors as Tim Keller at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC, John Piper at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, and Darrin Patrick at the Journey in St. Louis. Patrick has even been covered by the BBC for his current sermon series entitled “God’s Economy.” Because God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving, Calvinism sees all of life as spiritual and does not make arbitrary sacred/secular distinctions between such things as Sunday morning worship and how we spend our money. After all, it was Jesus who said, “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21).
Almost prophetically, an editorial in February edition of the New Scientist, the magazine’s editors offered a dramatically different interpretation. In an editorial called “The credit crunch could be a boon to irrational belief,” they return to the claim that humans are physiologically predisposed to supernatural belief as a coping mechanism when times are tough. As Michael Brooks remarks in a related article from the same issue of the New Scientist, “Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of spirits, gods and monsters, and the more insecure we feel, the harder it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. It seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods.”
Brooks goes on to explain that belief in religion assists in the survival of the basic family unit and, by extension, the community. Thus it is an evolutionary trait that assists in the survival of a species, explaining why every human society in history has been characterized by some kind of supernatural belief.
The author’s argument has a serious flaw he fails to deal with. All too often in discussions of scientific evidence, we forget that while the evidence may be objective, our interpretation is anything but. Christians can absolutely affirm the hard evidence this article discusses, but the conclusion (that supernatural belief is an accidental survival mechanism through evolutionary design) stems from philosophical naturalism, which precludes supernatural events. Philosophical naturalism, of which many in the scientific community subscribe, claims that because science cannot predict supernatural events, they cannot happen.
This is a powerful assumption – one that will be considered directly next week.
Brad Edwards is a husband, seminary student and lover of all things urban. His favorite topics of writing are the intersections of culture and theology.