Required Reading: Learning to Hear Why Evangelical Christians Hear God

Guest Post by David Long

Tanya Luhrmann, When God Talks Back

Tanya M. Luhrmann, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God (New York: Vintage, 2012).

Adam Laats’s testimonial for his creation of I love you but you’re going to hell was one of the most refreshing perspectives I’ve read in a long time.  Laats’ roots in Boston—having, what those of us living in the “fly-over” states might skeptically be inclined to see as the judgment of a  limited, Northeastern Liberal metropolitan view—make for interesting reading given his apparent surprise at thoughts and tendencies of ‘Red State’ America. In short, the general tone sounds something like—”these creatures really still exist?!”  In fact, as I suppose Laats has encountered through reader feedback, such creatures not only exist but make up a good bit of the Union.Countering Laats, those of us raised where ‘olde-timey’ religion has never faded, and where it remains an assumed keystone of responsible civic participation, raise an eyebrow to what we see as shortsighted judgment of those disinclined to ever value living in the interior.  Calming our nervous eye, Laats is on the right track.  His earnestness rings true.  Try to figure these curious people out.  Know where people are coming from.  But then what?  Historians are great at drawing on the past to inform the present.  Often, due to the normal purview of their back-looking view, they’re not as good at analyzing the dynamics of here and now.

The American relationship to God has not been static as historians show well.  Unabashed liberal  theologians such as Marcus Borg and sociologists such as Robert Putnam and David Campbell show that the American response to the sacred has been changing.  As Putnam and Campbell show most clearly, the old “Mainline” Christianity of Laats’ and many other’s childhood has eroded.  Congregations reduced by half in many cases over the past half century, the “Mainline” is Main no longer.  American Protestantism has changed dramatically in recent decades, ever more and more defined by the new Evangelicalism featured in T.M. Luhrmann’s When God Talks Back.

As Luhrmann sees it, “this is an important story because the rift between the believers and non-believers has grown so wide that it can be difficult for one side to respect the other.  Since evangelical Christianity emerged as a force in American culture, and especially since the younger George Bush rode a Christian wave into office, non-evangelical observers transfixed by the change in the American religious landscape.  Many have been horrified by what they take to be naïve and unthinking false beliefs, and alarmed by the nature of this modern God” (p. xv).

When God Talks Back follows the emergence of the rapidly growing neo charismatic evangelical movement in the U.S. through the lives, thoughts, and hopes of dozens of fellow church goers.  Luhrmann, a psychological anthropologist, presents a salient answer to those ILYBYGTH readers who wonder not only how such people exist, but how such views are cultivated.  Luhrmann’s work is ethnographic—she became a congregant of the Vineyard Church in a number of U.S. cities over a few years.  Countering some of Laats’ personal narrative, and further deflating modernist hopes that science and theories of progress would dissolve American religious commitment in time, Luhrmann shows that neo charismatic Evangelicalism is spreading throughout the U.S.—including major urban areas.  “There are pockets of liberal Christianity left in America and Europe,  but Christianity around the world has exploded in its seemingly least liberal and most magical form—in charismatic Christianities that take Biblical miracles at face value and treat the Holy Spirit as if it had a voltage” (p. 302).

Underscoring Luhrmann’s work, and worth what is a sometimes lengthy and ranging ethnographic treatment of Vineyard Church members, is the strongly theorized, yet easily digestible insight about science, faith, and the near American future.  The neo-Evangelicalism explored in Luhrmann’s work points strongly to a theory of religious practice—of knowing from doing religion—rather than the usually scientistic efforts of explaining Evangelicalism through evaluation of epistemological pathways of coming to know.

As Luhrmann explains, “…what I saw was that coming to a committed belief in God was more like learning to do something than to think something.  I would describe what I saw as a theory of attentional learning—that the way you learn to pay attention determines your experience of God.  More precisely, … people learn specific ways of attending to their minds and their emotions to find evidence of God, and that both what they attend to and how they attend changes their experience of their minds, ad that as a result, they begin to experience a real, external, interacting living presence” (p. xxi).

What unfolds chapter by chapter is a unique and deeply insightful look into the social practice of being an Evangelical Christian in early 21st century America.  As Luhrmann sees it, and given my own experience working and talking with creationists, such views are much more saliently explainable once you come to acknowledge the social support evangelicals get from their churches, appended by the reality of time allocation.  As Luhrmann makes a convincing case, being an Evangelical in today’s charismatic style—through the many, emotionally exuberant hours of praise and worship—changes one’s style of thinking.  Like Aristotelian phronesis, one can become quite good—a master—at the virtues of evangelical worship regardless of whether liberal America thinks it’s silly, backward, or indicative of sloppy thinking.

“They seemed to think about sensing God more or less the way we think about sophisticated expertise in any field: that repeated exposure and attention, coupled with specific training, helps the expert see things that are really present but that the raw observer cannot, and that some experts are more expert than others.  A sonogram technician looks at the wavy grey blur on the screen and sees a healthy boy.  This is not a matter of taste or aesthetic judgment: there is, or is not, a boy in the woman’s womb, and the technician can see evidence for the fact in a picture that leaves the expectant mother bewildered.  And a very good technician sees details that a merely competent one cannot” (p. 60).

In fact Luhrmann’s work offers another compelling insight into the durability of evangelical christianity in the early 21st century American milieu.  Countering the shrillness of some “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, etc., Luhrmann repeatedly follows evangelicals through life trials for which their church homes offer not only a sense of purpose, but a foil to those who might critique religious practice as being an inadequate explanatory matrix to respond to the world.  As Luhrmann makes clear, “in some quite fundamental way, modern believers don’t need religion to explain anything at all.  They have plenty of scientific accounts for why the world is as it is and why some bodies rather than others fall ill.  What they want from faith is to feel better than they did without faith.  They want a sense of purpose; they want to know that what they do is not meaningless” (p. 295).

Luhrmann’s book then is an invitation to those willing to suspend their critique of Christian America’s current form in favor of a an exploration of how and why it currently comes to be.

 

DAVID LONG is an anthropologist who studies the American relationship towards science, particularly as it unfolds in schools and universities.  His work examines the role of religious faith, social class, ethnicity, and gender in people’s lives as they relate to science.   He is the author of Evolution and religion in American education: an ethnography (Springer 2011), where he followed a cohort of college students, many of whom were Creationists, documenting the rationales and anxieties they encountered while thinking and talking about evolution.  He is currently conducting longitudinal research on the administrative decision making in K-12 schools which does or does not support science teaching.  Dr. Long currently directs implementation research for the Virginia Initiative for Science Teaching and Achievement at George Mason University.  He can be reached at dlong9@gmu.edu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith, Creation, and the “Secular” University

What does it mean to be a “secular” university?  Despite the name, it clearly does not mean a lack of religion on campus. 

A recent essay by David Vosburg on the BioLogos Forum discusses some of what it can be like to share religious and creationist ideas in a “secular” university.  Vosburg is a chemist at the decidedly non-religious Harvey Mudd College in California.  He earned his PhD at the similarly non-religious Scripps Research Institute.  He is also an evangelical Christian and an admirer of Darrel Falk’s evolutionary creationism

So what does being at a “secular” college mean for Vosburg’s faith?  As he notes, “Christian faculty at secular colleges and universities often do not feel safe publicly revealing their faith (due to a real or imagined hostile campus climate) or feel ill-equipped to tackle intimidating and controversial topics.”  Yet he also has found a variety of ways to remain actively involved in students’ faith lives.  As a pilot program, he directed a program for students in which they viewed the BioLogos film From the Dust.  Vosburg asked them to pair this viewing with readings from Genesis.  How did they react?  According to Vosburg,

“My students, several of whom I did not know prior to our science & faith study, were from both Protestant and Catholic backgrounds. Many had not deeply engaged the intersection of science and faith previously, but were dissatisfied with what they had been taught at church or at Christian primary or secondary schools. While individual responses at each session varied, the group was overwhelmingly positive about the content and the process of our study together. Many of the questions we discussed were difficult and emotional, and having the space to wrestle with the ideas together in a supportive group was incredibly helpful.”

When Vosburg calls his school “secular,” he means it in the sense that the school is not explicitly religious.  But clearly his own activism demonstrates that students do not study in an environment free from religion. 

As David E. Long has argued in his book Evolution and Religion in American Education: An Ethnography, “secular” college campuses are usually teeming with religion.  Protestant Fundamentalist evangelists were a common feature on the campus he studied.  Students crossing the quad were often warned, “all sinners are going to hell” (97). 

More intriguing, Long described a number of creationist faculty at several “secular” public universities, including his alma mater University of Kentucky. 

Clearly, when we talk about a “secular” university, public or private, we don’t mean it lacks religion.  Anyone who has spent any time at a “secular” school can attest to the lively religion among both students and faculty.  The difference, clearly, is that “secular” schools do not sponsor any particular religion, but promise to welcome all voices within their quads. 

In this sense, the “secular” part of life at a non-religious university seems perfectly to embody Charles Taylor’s “secularity 3.”  In A Secular Age (2007), Taylor pointed out that our secular society actually teems with vibrant religion.  Unlike earlier societies in which religion formed part of state and society, in “secularity 3,” society “contains different milieux, within each of which the default option may be different from others, although the dwellers within each are very aware of the options favored by the others, and cannot just dismiss them as inexplicable exotic error” (21).

For Vosburg at Harvey Mudd, or Long’s creationist faculty at the University Kentucky, or the innumerable evangelists who spread the gospel on college quads nationwide, Taylor’s definition fits to a T.  A “secular” university is not free of religion.  But each of the enthusiastic religious groups and individuals on campus are keenly aware that they are one voice among many.  Like Vosburg, they can lead discussions that hope to persuade students to see their points of view.  Like Long’s creationist faculty at public universities, they can propound their religious views outside of the classroom.  But they cannot rest on institutional support, nor can they dismiss other worldviews simply as “inexplicable exotic error.”

Required Reading: David Long and an Ethnography of Creationism

Gallup polls are what they are.  The numbers can be misleading from time to time.  As Homer Simpson scornfully concluded, “Facts!. . . pffft.  Facts can be used to prove anything that’s even remotely true.”

Image source: Dead Homer Society

But when polls keep saying the same thing, it makes sense to listen.  According to Gallup, from the mid-1980s through today, nearly half of American adults agree that the earth was created in “pretty much its present form within the last ten thousand years or so.”

Evolutionists like me tend to be shocked by this number.  How is this possible?

As David E. Long argues in his book Evolution and Religion in American Education: An Ethnography (Springer, 2011), the old evolutionists’ answers don’t hold up anymore.  Some evolutionists tend to assume that creationism, especially young-earth creationism, is similar to a public-health problem.  As soon as enough people are exposed to the saving truth of evolution, this argument goes, creationists will quickly realize the errors of their ways.  This assumption doesn’t match the historical facts, but it still has its share of true believers.  As we noted here recently, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” attracted a lot of attention when he endorsed this sort of fallacy.

Another problem, Long argues, is an implicit “deficiency model” among evolution educators.  These educators, Long asserts, would not be likely to blame students from households without a lot of books for being somewhat behind in their reading skills.  Yet they do blame students from creationist households for resisting evolution.

Long hopes to challenge these approaches to understanding creationism in America.  As he puts it, too many educators act as if learning evolution were a simple matter of “being shown discrete points of Truth and adding these bits to our respective Truth-piles” (14, emphasis in original).  If this were the case, Long argues, “there simply would be no societal issue over evolution.”  Obviously the deadlock over such issues as evolution, scientific creationism, and intelligent design proves that much more is going on here.

Long’s study joins others in offering a new approach.  As did Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer in their study of biology education, Long hopes to get inside the heads of those who are somehow avoiding evolution education.  Berkman and Plutzer found that anti-evolutionists had not necessarily been isolated from the truths of evolution.  Instead, many anti-evolutionists “choose to ignore scientific arguments demonstrating evolution.”[*]  Knowledge of evolution, according to their large study funded by the National Science Foundation, is often relatively high among those who dispute it most fervently.  This does not match the fantasies of science fans such as Bill Nye.  Long’s study, like that of Berkman and Plutzer, promises to unravel this apparent mystery.

Instead of asking, even implicitly, “what’s wrong with these creationist students?”, Long wants to ask, “what in fact do Creationists have that makes the study of evolution troublesome or even dangerous?” (15, emphasis in original.)

Long himself grew up in a conservative Protestant family.  He remembers his mother telling him sadly that he was going to hell (11).  But this book is neither an apology for creationism nor an attack on creationists.  Instead, Long offers an ethnography of creationism in action.  He conducted interviews with thirty-one students at a state university along the Ohio River.  The results make for arresting reading.

One student, a non-traditional student who grew up as a child of missionaries, reported that she had not learned any evolution before she got to college.  Sitting in the large lecture halls, she told Long that a professor made her feel distinctly inferior.  She remembered the lecturer’s attitude:  “If you believe in God creating the earth, then pretty much you’re an idiot.  And he obviously didn’t use those words, but that’s pretty much what he said.  And I remember thinking . . . What is he talking about?. . . like, he should just go around and ask people to raise their hands ‘who believes in this and who doesn’t’!” (36).

This student, “Esther,” told Long that she had no problem with the academic challenge of evolution.  In her words, “I take those really big classes, because it’s really easy to excel in those huge classes.  I mean, I got like a hundred on every test.  You have to be an idiot pretty much not to.  If you just sit, and you listen to what they’re saying, and you know how to take tests, it’s very easy to do well in those classes” (36).  Long wrestles with the important questions this sort of testimony evokes.  For students like Esther, what does it mean to “know” evolution?  What does it mean to feel belittled for one’s background, even if it is done unintentionally?

Another thoughtful creationist interviewee told Long that accepting the truth of evolution would mean “a lot of work for me to change my worldview, a lot of time, a lot of alienation from friends” (41).  Long asked what it would mean if somehow this student—who had been homeschooled into his creationist views—what it would mean if somehow this student found out that humans had really evolved.  The student replied, “It would be a complete crisis.  It would be really tough” (41).  As Long notes, this is more than a scientific situation.  This is an entire life wrapped up in creationism.

Long argues that evolution educators have not sufficiently wrestled with the existential anxiety at stake for some creationist students.  Accepting the truth of evolution, for some, would be more than simply changing one’s mind.  It would be a radical change, and more often, the “positive, commonsensical, and affirmed” path is to simply reject evolution (47).

In most cases, Long concludes that no amount of education really threatens to change students’ worldviews.  Of his batch, only three experienced any sort of profound change, including in their attitudes toward evolution.  These three cases form the basis of Long’s fifth chapter, a chapter that’s worth the price of admission all by itself.  Long describes the case of “Cindy,” a student from a staunchly anti-evolution small town.  Cindy ended up open to the notion of human evolution, but only because she challenged her entire upbringing.  It was not the eye-opening scientific evidence for evolution that convinced her.  Rather, Cindy got pregnant and had an abortion in high school.  The gossipy and cruel reaction of her church drove her away from that worldview.  The entire experience left Cindy open to the idea of human evolution.

Equally fascinating is the case of Renee.  Renee came from a non-religious family, sort of.  She was a biology major with plans on graduate work in pharmacology.  Her non-religious worldview was shattered not by the saving words of Jesus, but rather by pair of bitter divorces.  Renee herself divorced her husband, and her father divorced her mother.  Partly as a result, Renee’s father embraced the creationist-centered conservative Protestantism of his youth.  Though Renee’s mother continued to insist on the family’s atheism, Renee embraced creationist Christianity during a trip with her father to the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati.

These brief summaries can’t do justice to the fascinating case studies Long explores in this book.  The book itself is a must-read for any outsiders who really want to understand the evolution/creation stalemate in America.  Long’s interviews and analyses offer unmatched insight into the reasons why evolution and creation both create such durable and impermeable worldviews.

Unfortunately, unless and until a paperback edition comes out, Long’s publisher has priced this out of range for most non-institutional buyers.  At $140, it is targeted more at university libraries than interested lay readers.  Hopefully, that will not restrict the number of readers this book attracts.  Joining other nuanced studies like Berkman’s and Plutzer’s, Long’s book promises to make an end run around some of the conceptual difficulties that have stymied so many efforts to understand the durability of creationism in the United States.


[*] Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 78.  Emphasis in original.