WEEKLY COMMENTARY: Why Is Scientific Evidence Often Ineffective In Changing Beliefs?

Moral attitudes are especially difficult to change because the attached emotions may largely define who we are.  Certain beliefs are so important to us that they become part of our identity.

Take, for example, the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelwies.  A recent bulletin board exhibit, entitled "The History of Hand Washing," displayed  at Overlook Hospital, illustrates how difficult it can be for contrary facts to change strongly-held beliefs.

Dr. Semmelwies was the Chief Resident in surgery at the Vienna General Hospital in 1847. At the time, the theory of diseases was highly influenced by ideas of an imbalance of the basic "four humours" in the body, a theory known as dyscrasia for which the main treatment was blood lettings.

At the Vienna General Hospital, there were two OBGYN clinics.  Clinic #1 was a teaching service for medical students.  Clinic #2 was exclusively for the instruction of midwives.  At the time, the staff were quite puzzled about a consistent difference in the mortality rates of the two clinics.

A good friend of Dr. Semmelwies died after accidentally being poked with a student's scalpel while performing a post mortem exam.  The friend's own autopsy showed a pathology similar to that of women in Clinic#1 who were dying of puerperal fever (infection of a woman's placenta following delivery or abortion, sometimes causing death by the infection passing into the bloodstream).  Dr. Semmelwies proposed that there could be a connection between cadaver contamination and the puerperal fever.  He concluded that he and the medical students carried "cadaverous particles" on their hands from the autopsy room to the patients in OBGYN Clinic #1, that caused puerperal fever and the higher incidence of patient deaths than in Clinic #2.  He believed this explained why the student midwives in Clinic #2 (who were not engaged in autopsies and had no contact with the corpses) saw almost no mortality.

Dr. Semmelwies instituted a policy of using a solution of calcium hypochlorite for washing hands between autopsy work and the examination of patients in Clinic #1.  Mortality rates dropped dramatically in Clinic #1.

Regardless of these facts, many doctors in Vienna were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands.  They felt that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.  As a result, Dr. Semmelwies' ideas were rejected by the medical community.  Perfectly reasonable hand-washing proposals were ridiculed and rejected by Dr. Semmelwies' contemporaries in the 1840's.  The ideas of Dr. Semmelwies were in conflict with established medical opinions, regardless of being consistent with scientific facts.

Only years after his death, did Dr. Semmelwies' hand-washing requirement earn widespread acceptance, when Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease. Pasteur was able to develop the germ theory through experiments demonstrating that organisms such as bacteria were responsible for souring wine, beer and even milk. Today, the process he invented for removing bacteria by boiling and then cooling a liquid (pasteurization) is not in dispute, but it took decades for acceptance.  Today, Dr, Semmelwies is recognized in medical circles as a pioneer of antiseptic policy.

According to the Overlook Hospital exhibit, "Semmelwies Reflex" is a term applied today to a certain type of human behavior characterized by reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms.

When the subjects of climate change or evolution come up in conversation today, do some of us tend to deny widely accepted scientific findings because they challenge our identity ---- our sense of self?  Do we think there is solid evidence that human activity has made the average temperature on earth warmer over the past few decades? Do we think humans and other living things have evolved ---- they have not existed in their present forms since the beginning of time?  To believe either is these propositions requires some rejection of Biblical and/or political teaching.  This in turn could alienate us from certain group values, like like those of our church denomination or of our political party.

Several years ago, The New York Times published a story by Maggie Koerth-Baker, in which she argued that factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective in changing beliefs.  She said there are times when one's sense of identity may trump the facts. The emotions attached to such preferences largely define who we are.  Certain beliefs are so important for a society or group that they become part of how one proves our identity.  We want to side with people who share our identity ---- even when the facts disagree.  Calling someone a "flip-flopper" is a way of calling them morally suspect, as if those who change their minds are in some way being unfaithful to their group.

Whether we are changing our own mind or someone else's, the key is emotional, persuasive storytelling.  Stories are more powerful than data, says Ms. Koerth-Baker, because they allow individuals to identify emotionally with ideas and with people they might otherwise see as "outsiders."  She goes on to report the speculation by researchers, for example, that children who grow up seeing friendly gay people on TV will be more likely to support gay marriage as adults, regardless of other political affiliations and religious beliefs.

________________________________________________________________________

These thoughts are brought to you by CPC's Adult Spiritual Development Team, seeking to encourage some spiritual growth this fall.

________________________________________________________________________

  

WEEKLY COMMENTARY: There Are Two Ways To Regret Our Sins. One Way Works . . . The Other Way Does Not

Most of us will admit that from time to time we do or think wrong things.  We understand that God may not really approve of such behavior on our part.  How do we "get right" with God?

In the Book of Luke, Jesus offers us this helpful parable (Luke 18:10-14):

          "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax

            collector.  The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank

            you that I am not like other men  ----  robbers, evildoers, adulterers  ---- or

            even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' "

           "But the tax collector stood at a distance.  He would not even look up to

            heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' "

           "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.

            For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles

            himself will be exalted."

In one sense, the Pharisee certainly was a good man.  When he says he gives a tenth of all he gets, that means he's generous to the poor.   When he says he doesn't commit adultery, that means he's a faithful husband.

But let's look at the Pharisee's prayer ---- whenever we write a  thank-you note to someone, aren't we thanking them for things that they have done?  However, this Pharisee says, "God, I thank you," and that's it.  That's the last reference to God in the prayer.  This prayer is all about the Pharisee himself.  This is self-worship.  Underneath the veneer of God-centeredness is utter self-centeredness.  Underneath the veneer of all that God-talk and all the God-activity and all the morality, is adoration of self.

The Pharisee's view of acting morally right and being righteous seems to have two characteristics:

     1.) His understanding of sin and virtue is completely external.  It's completely focused on 

          behavior and the violation of, or the keeping of, rules.  It's not looking inside.  It is not 

          looking at character.  Sin is perceived completely in terms of discrete external actions. 

          Notice he doesn't say, "God, I thank you that I am getting more patient.  I'm getting to be

          a gentler person.  I am able to love people I used to not be able to love.  I'm able to keep

          my joy and peace, even when things go wrong."

     2.) The Pharisee says, "I'm not like other men," implying, "I am so much better." ----- Is he 

          perhaps looking down on those 'other men'?

Now, consider the tax collector.  What can we learn about repentance from his attitude?

If you think of sin externally and compare it to the sin of others, as the Pharisee did, there's always somebody who has committed more sins than you.  You are only ever a sinner, you are never the sinner.  The Pharisee, however, is thinking of sin in relative terms.

On the other hand, what the tax collector is saying is, "All I know is I am lost, and where everybody else is does not matter.  The tax collector is not just looking at what he's done wrong, he is not just looking at his discrete external actions ---- his whole understanding of himself is that he is the sinner.  It is a part of the identity he was born with.  He asks for mercy.  He sees he depends on God's radical grace.  He cannot cure the problem himself, it is beyond his own will power.

The attitude of the tax collector shows us that real repentance involves real sorrow over sin and the way it grieves God.  Fake repentance is merely sorrow over the consequences of sin and the way it has grieved YOU.  Self-pity may appear to be repentance, but it is not.

Jesus says the tax collector went home "justified" before God.  What does Jesus mean by "justified before God"?  What is "justification"?  Scholar and Presbyterian pastor Timothy Keller says that in this parable, Jesus introduces us to a universal problem ---- the problem of righteousness, and then Jesus gives us two figures, each of whom represents a particular solution to the problem.  One solution does not work, says Keller.  The other one does work.

The Pharisee is trying to justify himself by his good deeds and by his conscientious religious practices.  He is keeping God's rules, but in such a way (focusing on the external) that it makes him feel good about himself.  So, he can say, "Now, God, you owe me."  He is keeping God's external rules as a way of getting "right" with God.  He is not depending on God's radical grace. The tax collector, on the other hand, shows by his words and actions that he is utterly depending on God's mercy.

"Justification" is a legal term, borrowed from the law courts.  It is the exact opposite of "condemnation".  To condemn is to declare somebody guilty, whereas "to justify" is to declare a person free from guilt or sin.  The Bible refers to God's act of unmerited favor by which God puts a sinner "right" with Himself ---- not only pardoning or acquitting him, but by accepting him, and treating him as being free from guilt or sin.  No matter what we attempt to do for ourselves, only God can do this.

We are justified and thus treated as free from guilt and sin, only because of God's unmerited favor.  God's love and acceptance of us, says Pastor Keller, is secured through Christ, and we obey God's law out of a desire to delight, resemble and know Jesus.

________________________________________________________________________________

These thoughts are brought to you by CPC's Adult Spiritual Development Team, hoping to encourage some personal growth this year at CPC.

________________________________________________________________________________

WEEKLY COMMENTARY: What Would Jesus Tell Us Today?

At the time Jesus was crucified, Christianity was an insignificant Jewish sect, centered around the city of Jerusalem.  Soon after, the disciples did as Jesus had told them and went to a mountain top in Galilee, where they encountered Jesus again.  There Jesus told them:

          "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

           Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing

            them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the

            Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have

            commanded you.  And surely I am with you always, to the

            very end of the age."                (Matthew 28: 18 - 20)

Down through the centuries, this directive became known as "The Great Commission," and it has been the inspiration for missionaries and teachers of many Christian denominations.  Indeed, the disciples Peter and Paul, and others who believed in what Jesus taught, took risky journeys among the Gentiles to teach and preach about Jesus.  Christianity eventually became the standard for the Roman Empire, and much of Europe and the Middle East were converted.

With my somewhat simplistic knowledge of the spread of the faith, I was surprised when I read recently that the place where Christianity was started seems now to be moving in the opposite direction.

In a recent issue of the Christian Science Monitor Weekly, there was a lengthy article entitled "A Middle East Without Christians?"  The author was a Monitor staff writer, reporting from Bethlehem, in the West Bank.  She wrote, "Two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, Christianity is under assault in the Holy Land and across the entire Middle East, more that at any time in the past century."  She quotes some informed observers as speculating that one of the world's three great religions could vanish entirely from the Middle East region within a generation or two.

The Monitor staff writer continues:  "From  Iraq, which has lost at least half of its Christians over the past decade, to Egypt, which saw the worst spate of anti-Christian violence in 700 years in the summer of 2012, to Syria, where jihadists are killing Christians and burying them in mass graves, the followers of Jesus face violence, declining churches and ecumenical divides.  Today, fewer than 500,000 Christians remain in Iraq from a prewar population of between 1 million and 1.4 million.  As many as 450,000 of the 2 million refugees fleeing Syria today are Christians. Christians now make up only 5% of the population of the Middle East, down from 20% a century ago."

It would seem that as political Islam has gained support, Christians can no longer find refuge in a shared Arab identity with their Muslim neighbors, but are instead increasingly stereotyped by an emphasis on religious identity.  Calls for citizenship with equal rights are countered with stories of Islamist extremists demanding that Christians convert to Islam, or pay an exorbitant tax, or die! Naturally, this has prompted many Christians to flee their country.

Historians tell us that there have been many cycles of Christian persecution and prosperity over the centuries.  But those who study these trends see four major differences between the problems Christians face today in the Middle East, and those of the past.

First, jihadist groups have access to weapons today on a scale unknown in history.  The disciples of Jesus were not confronted with road-side bombing and aircraft attacks.  The ability to kill and injure one's enemy has been much "perfected" since Jesus' time.

Secondly, propaganda can be spread today more easily by the enemies of Christianity than ever before.  In the time of Jesus, family tradition determined life values for most people.  Today, values are taught subtly on cell phones, T.V. and other media, which often devalue tradition.

Thirdly, because of Western military involvement in the Middle East, local Christian communities are more easily accused of disloyalty to their own society, given the assumption that their loyalty would be to the West.

Fourth, it would seem that today's social and religious values are seen as of more consequence than perhaps they were in the time of Jesus ---- in the sense of being more "black" and "white". The Bible notes there were certain tribes and classes of people with which one did not associate. Today in the Middle East, members of different tribes, classes or faiths may be strongly "encouraged" by extremists to adopt the Muslim faith or be punished with death. Furthermore, today in the Middle East one's religion may be the primary test for a job, not whether one is qualified to do the job.

For those Christians whose families literally live in the present turmoil of the Middle East, what would Jesus tell them to do?  We know from Matthew 5:44 that Jesus told his disciples, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."  It would seem that confrontation with one's enemies is not what Jesus had in mind, even two thousand years ago.  Today, perhaps the only way to avoid that confrontation with a determined enemy is to move physically to a safer place. That is what much of the population of Syria has already done.

So, what is our role if we are to stand behind these refugee Christians?  Perhaps Jesus would say it is to welcome them, feed them, educate their children, help them obtain jobs, and guide them in a new culture to become self-sufficient, contributing citizens.

Do you remember the story of the Good Samaritan?  A traveler came upon an injured man on the side of the road.  But the man was not of the traveler's tribe.  Nevertheless, the traveler cared generously for the injured man.  Could Jesus be saying we are called to do the same?

________________________________________________________________________________

These thoughts are brought to you by CPC's Adult Spiritual Development Team, hoping to encourage you to pursue some personal spiritual growth this fall at CPC.

________________________________________________________________________________

Weekly Commentary: Do You Really Understand Poverty?

At lunch one day with a couple who were long-time friends, they were full of stories about a vacation trip they had just taken.  It was a cruise to a distant part of the world, which included stops at numerous ports I had always wanted to visit.  When I left them, I was excited about taking that cruise myself ---- that would be an ideal vacation adventure!

I looked on the internet for similar cruise opportunities, and importantly to answer the question "What would it cost?"  After an hour or two of thorough searching, I had found several cruise alternatives, but they were pricey!!  To be honest, they were beyond my budget ---- way beyond! What a disappointing discovery.  I guess I was too "poor" to enjoy the cruise life that my friends had raved about.

Recently, I read a magazine article about the World Bank.  You will remember that at the end of World War II, the Bank was remarkably successful in financing the rebuilding of war-torn Europe. The report I was reading said the modern-day mission of the Bank is to assist low-income countries around the world, which means attempting to eliminate or reduce their poverty.

Interestingly, they had found that people in the relatively developed economies (that is, the financial donors to the Bank) usually describe "poverty" differently than do the poor in the low-income countries they intend to help.  While the poor people of less-developed countries mention having a lack of material things, they tend to emphasize  their condition in far more psychological and social terms compared to the people in donor countries.  The people in poverty in less-developed countries typically talked in terms of shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation. fear, hopelessness, depression, social isolation, and voicelessness.

On the other hand, the leaders in developed countries tend to see "poverty" as a lack of material things such as food, clean water, medicine, housing, etc., when they talked about "the poor".

Somehow we must embrace both perceptions of "poverty" if we aim to change anything for the better.  If, in working with poor people, we treat only the symptoms, or if we mis-diagnose the underlying problem, we will not improve their situation, and we might actually make their lives worse.

While the World Bank's focus today is on less-developed countries, we should not forget that we have poverty in the U.S. and in other developed countries.  So, we don't need to go to foreign less-developed countries to experience and appreciate the psychological and social dimensions of poverty.  It is nearby, if we look for it.  For example, last summer CPC conducted a week-long mission trip to an economically depressed area of Maryland, to live with and do light construction work amidst an impoverished community.  This close working relationship with the "poor" helped the mission team members break through the stereotypes many of us have of the "poor", and better understand the psychological and social side of poverty.

There are many such examples of how churches and other groups have acquired a sense of the psychological and social aspects of poverty, for a more well-rounded understanding of poverty's challenge.  They now see that there is more to it than just sending money.  They have acquired a better understanding of the people they are trying to help.

The lesson for me is that my "poverty" is actually quite unlike the type of poverty we have just been talking about.  For my comfortable life style, it is required only that I be prudent when choosing my options for how I use my greater material resources ---- choices that the desperately poor are not afforded.  For me there is merely disappointment when I cannot keep up with my wealthier friends, but no feelings of shame, inferiority, fear, powerlessness, humiliation, hopelessness, depression, social isolation or voicelessness.  I have to put my "poverty" in perspective.  I must remember that while I sometimes may think I am "poor," my situation will not, and should not, support an application to the World Bank for a loan.

________________________________________________________________________________

These thoughts are brought to you by the CPC Adult Spiritual Development Team, hoping they will encourage your spiritual growth this fall.

________________________________________________________________________________