Image from worldatlas.com.
Back when Christianity spread over the western world, religious leaders proclaimed the Bible to be the source of wisdom on every topic, and themselves to be the sole explainers of its wisdom. God wanted to guide his children through every issue or question they might encounter in life, and all of life’s answers were contained in the Bible. It was just a question of finding the right scripture and then interpreting it the right way.
Astronomy
For 1500 years (give or take), Christendom asserted that the Earth is at the center of God’s creations and everything else orbits around it. The geocentric system, formalized and advanced by Ptolemy in the 2nd century, had Christianity’s seal of approval. Obviously, the workings of the heavens were within religious territory. After all, God resided in heaven and the Bible described the relationship of the heavens and the earth. Not in so many words, of course. Neither Jesus nor any of the Old Testament prophets actually said anything about planets and orbits, but the principle was inferred from a number of verses in the Bible.
“You fixed the earth on its foundations” (Psalm 104:5).
“God made the orb immobile” (1 Chronicles 16:30).
“He suspended the earth above nothingness, that is, above the center” (Job 26:7).
“Heaven is up, the earth is down” (Proverbs 30:3).
“The sun rises, and sets, and returns to its place, from which, reborn, it revolves through the meridian, and is curved toward the North” (Ecclesiastes 1:5).
“God made two lights, i.e., a greater light and a smaller light, and the stars, to shine above the earth” (Genesis 1:17).
Joshua stopped the sun to give the Israelites victory in battle (Joshua 12:12-14).
When the scientists of the Enlightenment began questioning the geocentric model of the universe, Catholic leaders fought back. Demoting the earth from the center of the universe was blasphemy. The heavens were religious territory; science should stay away.
Except the Catholic Church was wrong. Telescopes, astronomers, and mathematics were proving the Church’s model of the solar system wrong. The sun is the center. The earth orbits around the sun. Astronomers didn’t want to get excommunicated for blasphemy, so for a while, science danced around religion. It was a turf war. Who gets to say what actually goes on in the heavens? Cautious astronomers suggested that their fancy mathematical theories were just models for predicting the movements of stars and planets — they don’t actually mean the earth isn’t the center of the universe. That compromise didn’t last very long.
Galileo spent a lot of his life corresponding with the Vatican about the heliocentric model of the solar system. Famously, the Church forced Galileo to recant his heliocentric heresy and put him on house arrest for the rest of his life. [fn 1]
The Church fought to keep its control over heaven but eventually, finally, the Catholic Church had to admit that the sun is at the center of the solar system. Those verses in the Bible were figurative, not literal. The interpretations put on those verses by Christian scholars were wrong.
And Christianity survived. Christianity doesn’t need the sun to orbit around the earth in order to teach that Jesus is the Savior. The earth can revolve around the sun, and the Sermon on the Mount is still profound and beautiful. Earth is just one of many planets, and Jesus was still born in Bethlehem.
Science didn’t limit religion, or prove religion wrong. Instead, it described the heavens using mathematics instead of religious beliefs, and pointed out that the Bible doesn’t really say much about astronomy. There’s room for Christianity and astronomy both.
Bodily Autonomy
Today’s culture war about sex, gender and reproduction is fighting about where religious territory ends and scientific territory begins. It’s another turf war, this time about bodily autonomy.
Gay sex, abortion, reproductive rights, and transgenderism all directly challenge Christian religious beliefs about the body. Who has the right to make decisions about your body? Christians say that the God who created us has the right to command us on topics of sex, gender and reproduction. Secularists (and a good portion of Christians) believe that the person in the body has the right to make decisions about their own body.
Conservative Christianity is fighting control bodies. I predict that science and bodily autonomy will continue to edge out the teachings of men that have been mingled with scripture. Individuals are realizing they can respect bodily autonomy and still love God. Some churches are progressive on these topics, and still Christian.
Christianity will survive bodily autonomy, the same way it survived the heliocentric model of the solar system. Christianity doesn’t need the gay people to live a life of celibacy and self-hatred in order to teach that Jesus is the Savior. A woman can make her own decisions about abortion, and the Sermon on the Mount is still profound and beautiful. Trans women are women; trans men are men, and Jesus was still born in Bethlehem.
Christianity and bodily autonomy can co-exist peacefully.
- Do you think Christianity is just an excuse to advance conservative values? Or do you think the current culture war is genuinely rooted in Christian belief?
- Does discussing Bible verses with Christian conservatives do any good? I wrote an entire post about how the Bible doesn’t prohibit abortion. I’m not sure reading the actual scriptures matters to Christian conservatives.
- Jesus didn’t talk about a lot of topics. Should we even try to figure out WWYD (What Would Jesus Do)?
[fn 1] Shea, William R. and Artigas, Mariano, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius, (Oxford University Press 2003).
Wheat & Tares 
Janey, this is a beautiful essay. I am 100% with you on the first half (astronomy), and I appreciate your connection of that approach to the second half (bodily autonomy). The turf war approach is a legitimate way [even if not the dispositive way, yes, certainly still a legitimate way] to look at this matter, and maybe other matters as well.
Some people thought that civilization would crumble and life as we know it would descend into chaos at the thought of gay marriage, but it did not. Legalized abortion doesn’t impact my ability to live the gospel in my life. I would not criminalize either gay marriage or abortion, just as I would not criminalize adultery, gambling, or viewing pornography, all of which a church can properly dislike.
Janey, I’m intrigued about Bible translation in the verses you cited. The Ecclesiastes verse seemed unfamiliar enough that I looked it up, and the id est in the Genesis quote seemed odd. I don’t know which translation these verses came from, but I do appreciate a new look at old texts. Thanks.
There is one aspect of religion that just might be more important to religious political conservatives than even Jesus. That aspect is also part of the turf wars, but the conservatives don’t want to name it. That aspect is patriarchy. The turf war is more about patriarchy and male control of female bodies than it is about Jesus. Sure, the Jesus part of religion would survive religion losing the turf war. That isn’t want the right cares about. The far right cares about white male supremacy.
If you knew that some people have attached spirits that influence their thoughts and behavior, would that change this discussion from being a turf war? There are people with the capability to see spirits and they say that every gay/trans person they have observed has a spirit of the opposite sex attached to them. If that was the case would it move the discussion back into the religious/spiritual realm where we might even talk about casting our spirits?
Sorry. I meant casting OUT spirits.
I can’t speak to discussing bible verses with Christians at large, but in our faith community it’s fruitless thanks to the notion of living prophets. As long as Oaks trots out the family proclamation every GC there’s just no convincing some people.
The most effective method for changing hearts and minds on this topic is when a church member has to confront their beliefs with a queer family member they truly love. As long as god keeps sending queer children to Christian families, I hope we can get there.
Recommended reading: Gregory A. Prince, Gay Rights and the Mormon Church: Intended Actions, Unintended Consequences (Univ. of Utah Press, 2019).
University of Utah Press | Gay Rights and the Mormon Church (uofupress.com)
Nice work again, Janey. There are still Christians today who consider the Bible as the single most important source of truth and wisdom. Such people are potentially very dangerous. The Bible is an ancient collection of fables written by people who literally did not know where the sun went at night. In that sense, I can begin to understand Galileo’s lifelong frustration with religious authorities, despite being devoutly religious himself.
And just as in Galileo’s time, the anti-science culture wars being waged by the religious right are not really about the honest pursuit of truth (which I consider to be a core principle of the Gospel), they are all about power and control. Any new ideas that potentially challenge a religious organization’s power structures and narratives, no matter how scientifically valid, are enemies to that organization. And as history has shown us, those organizations will go to extraordinary lengths to silence those voices, even justifying excusing themselves from adhering to the ethical, moral or otherwise Christlike behavior they outwardly preach.
Many people (most people?) are ethnocentric and are therefore suspicious of others who are different either racially, culturally, nationally, religiously, and sexually. Here on W&T we probably like to think of ourselves as above this kind of prejudice, but nobody is 100% pure.
And because most people have these kinds of biases, we look for supporting structures to enforce our beliefs. Maybe we find it on MSNBC or Newsmax. Maybe we find it in our neighborhoods. We can definitely fine it in religion.
Mormonism is in many ways a good thing. But it allows us to enjoy patriarchy, white nationalism, white superiority, heterosexual superiority, and even some “we are chosen” mentality over other fine religions. Almost every prejudice I have ever had was rooted in Mormonism. I’m trying to rid myself of that as I’ve exited the religion. It’s easier to do once you’re out.
It’s funny. Mormons are some of the best people I know. I really believe that and have experienced that. But they are also some of the most prejudice people you’ll ever meet if you get them to open up about their core beliefs rooted in the Church.
I believe we are in danger of mischaracterizing or misreading the Bible and its importance. Stories, fables or myths are a serious matter and were a mode of communication in the ancient world. We do a disservice to them if we read them with dismissive modern eyes. The Old Testament is a collection of ancient texts for an ancient audience, and what they communicated has (at times) implications for our humanity, our approach to the Divine and our relationship with other faiths. It is a library for high-minded adults who are ready to deal with genre, historical and cultural contexts. (I am not talking Gospel Doctrine lessons.) There is no way to combat the creeping fundamentalism in various Christian faiths (engage in the “culture war”) without Bible literacy. Both sides will simply speak past each other, with no common points of reference. Any win-win solutions will likely come by addressing themes found in the Bible. One could make a case paralleling Janey’s position from Bible teachings and evaluating examples found in its pages (some of them are horrifying… remember this is the Old Testament we are talking about here!)
The ironic part of my little rant is that Renaissance Church leaders also misread the Bible, trying to make it a literal description of the physical world for 1500 AD. I believe that such a notion would have confused even ancient readers. We should not follow suit and misread the Bible again and dismiss the cultural and religious importance of that work.
Georgis, I took the list of Bible verses verbatim from the book I cited in footnote 1. And then I realized I didn’t include footnote 1! Oops. I have now included the citation to the book “Galileo in Rome.” I don’t know which translation of the Bible was used to compile that list of scriptures and I didn’t go looking.
cachemagic, people who see things that others can’t see are typically experiencing visual hallucinations. I’d suggest they seek treatment rather than relying on their visions.
I am checking in while at lunch. Longer comment coming after work. Thanks for a great discussion!
“Many people (most people?) are ethnocentric and are therefore suspicious of others who are different either racially, culturally, nationally, religiously, and sexually.
I think it is actually a broader list than that that includes “disability” in the sense of “being unable to do what everyone else can do/is assumed to do”. That might include the “thinking differently” that comes from descriptions such as ADHD or Autism (among others) as well as those individuals more prevalently working with Anxiety and/or Depression. That might include the “moving differently” that is still debilitating – whether from aging and/or specific health conditions. That doesn’t even include the temporary “disability” that pregnancy entails (and makes no accounting for the stresses and ability limitations of partners during the pregnancy who supported the pregnant individual and the first few years after giving birth).
Most individuals assume that those whom they encounter “live the same lifestyle (ish)” and are not comfortable whenever they encounter people whose lived experience is different, whose experience is “disabled” for some degree of a mortal time period.
FORMATTING & CREDITING UPDATE:
“Many people (most people?) are ethnocentric and are therefore suspicious of others who are different either racially, culturally, nationally, religiously, and sexually.” – Josh H
I think it is actually a broader list than that that includes “disability” in the sense of “being unable to do what everyone else can do/is assumed to do”. That might include the “thinking differently” that comes from descriptions such as ADHD or Autism (among others) as well as those individuals more prevalently working with Anxiety and/or Depression. That might include the “moving differently” that is still debilitating – whether from aging and/or specific health conditions. That doesn’t even include the temporary “disability” that pregnancy entails (and makes no accounting for the stresses and ability limitations of partners during the pregnancy who supported the pregnant individual and the first few years after giving birth).
Most individuals assume that those whom they encounter “live the same lifestyle (ish)” and are not comfortable whenever they encounter people whose lived experience is different, whose experience is “disabled” for some degree of a mortal time period.
For anyone wondering, those bible verses don’t seem to be from any English translation. Every reference I can find with those wordings are in discussions specifically about Galileo. From one site:
I can only surmise that these wordings are likely English translations of the Italian that Galileo and/or Ludovico was using to describe the verses; that is, I think they are paraphrases of the verses, and not actual translations of the Bible itself.
Dave W – fascinating research! Thanks for looking that up. Galileo died in 1642, which was about 20 years after the King James Version of the Bible was published for the first time, and he certainly wouldn’t be working from an English translation in any event. Naturally the Vatican would have been working with Greek, Hebrew or Latin text of a Bible, and the historian who wrote the book would have used words similar to what Galileo may have read/heard back in the early 1600s. They wouldn’t match any English translation.
As several have mentioned, (Anna, Chadwick, Jack Hughes), religious believers aren’t really in search of truth so much as on a quest for power and control. Lots of groups are seeking power and control; it just seems more outlandish when religious believers do it because we want to believe that religious believers inherently care about truth.
Religious beliefs are more flexible and adaptable than religious believers will admit. Like Georgis points out, faith can co-exist with granting people rights.
josh h – I’ve been thinking about ethnocentrism since hawkgrrl’s post this week made me recall eugenics. Yeah, it’s a natural tendency. I’m more aware of my biases than when I was faithful. It doesn’t erase the bias; but it’s easier to identify and guard against.
Old Man – the Bible is interesting as a study of culture and how people have interacted with religious beliefs over a thousand years. I’m willing to bet that most people do see the Bible as fables and stories, culturally important but not morally binding on us. Unfortunately, the people who see the Bible as the final word on every topic have gained a lot of political power although they are a minority.
Janey, I likely agree with you that religious leaders are often looking to maintain and expand power and control, even if they do it with benevolent intent, but I might take a more generous view of most religious believers. Yes, medieval bishops in their palaces and on their thrones looked for power, but most peasants in their hovels simply wanted their children baptized, their marriages consecrated, their sins forgiven, and their dead buried with holy rites and in sacred ground. What was true in the Middle Ages is still true in large measure true today. I don’t think that most of the people in LDS pews are looking for power and control, and the same would be true for most people in Catholic, Baptist, or Presbyterian pews. They might not be earnestly looking for truth as much as they are looking for peace in their lives and repetition in their observances, but I don’t see these simple and usually good people as looking for power. That said, however, intrusive ministering brothers and sisters, ward gossipers and busybodies, and local leaders athirst for power can make life almost a hell for their fellow ward members. I tend to be a live-and-let-live kind of guy, but I know some people have opinions on what I should be doing inside my closed doors, in what manner, and how frequently. Sometimes a close petty tyrant can be worse than a larger but more distant tyrant.
I appreciate your comment on people with disabilities. There certainly is an assumption that our own experiences are the same as other people’s experiences, and they just aren’t. That isn’t reality, and the other reality I have learned it that usually there’s just no way to explain my experience and be entirely understood.
Oops. I was trying to address Anna
Wow. Guess I am the disabled one tonight. Thank you Amy. You said it twice
Several years before the prop 8 debate, I was finishing up my undergraduate studies at BYU. There were heated back-and-forth op-eds in the campus student newspaper on LGBTQ issues. I remember very clearly reading this article:
https://universe.byu.edu/2004/03/26/professor-claims-scientific-evidence-of-homosexuality/
That article and the presentation elicited a backlash from orthodox students who felt compelled to use church doctrine and The Proclamation on the Family to label this professor and other students who were not hostile to LGBTQ people as heretics, apostates, and/or promoting false doctrine. It has taken a longtime to ban conversion therapy or change LDS leaders from counseling the use of atonement to change sexual orientation. The journey is far from over, and in some ways the backlash is happening. But in a very small way, there are people like William Bradshaw who have acted with the same sort of integrity towards truth much like Galileo, but in their own time and cultural context.
I can’t help but think that the southern Baptist convention voting to oppose in vitro fertilization will lead to many believers questioning their priors and hopefully will lead to a more nuanced debate about abortion.
Great post, Janey! Thank you for the thought-provoking historical perspective. Decades of observation and participation (increasingly at arm’s length) tells me that whatever it claims to be, organized religion is mostly about consolidating power. We can’t study early Christianity in particular without studying secular politics in the regions where Christianity became an institution. As Lord Byron said, “History, with all her volumes vast, hath but one page.”
From what I suspect are many sources steeped in hard data, this reality emerges: red-state citizens banging the “Christian nation” drum don’t have any better church attendance than any other group. They just have a brand built on some weighty assumptions. I see little evidence that people on the political right spend any significant time studying the Bible, let alone showing up on Sunday and paying tithing. And the ones that do, seem far more fixated on Paul than Jesus. Yet, apparently I’m the godless one for having never said the obligatory sinner’s prayer (even though I attended church services a whole bunch, read and pondered scripture deeply, during the Lenten season.) Go figure.
The flip side of this is I see many progressive Christians doing the same thing. They just aren’t as loud or moneyed, as religionists go. On the progressive side of religion, I am routinely asked to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was some sort of ultra-inclusive feministic mindfulness instructor. But… Rome didn’t crucify people for being easygoing feelgood types. Attend enough zoom fellowships you’ll encounter the self-taught students of Greek and Hebrew, who always manage to discover what apparently every major Bible translation to date has missed–namely, that the original Hebrew/Greek verbs and adjectives on the scrolls happen to be right in line with their contemporary progressive values. I don’t buy it.
Wherever I see organized religion claiming to be authentically Christian, I also see a social agenda. As with news sources, maybe the best thing we can do is commit to having 2-3 or religious affiliations, instead of going all in on one. When did checks and balances go out of style in this country?
Old Man, I agree with you regarding the study of the entire Bible. After I became acquainted with the Jewish New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine and read several of her thought provoking books plus her and Mark Zvi Brettler’s “The Jewish Annotated New Testament” as well as some Hebrew study Bibles I realized just how wrong or incomplete many Christian doctrines (including Mormon church doctrines based on the Bible) are. It’s no wonder that white supremacy, Antisemitism, racism, the denigration of women, ignoring the poor, mentally ill and disabled and much more are still popular concepts among many practicing Christians today. If we don’t understand the history and religious and social cultures of the times that these scriptures were written in we lose the context of them and then misinterpret so much that is vital and life affirming much to our own spiritual peril.
Galileo was blinded at the end of his life by the Catholic Church because he “saw” the truth and spoke about it. Today, the LDS doesn’t really have the relationship with the state to control individuals like that, even though it exerts a lot of control politically in Utah and the Intermountain West to shape legislation. The control today the “church” has is cutting someone off at the local level who happens to see the truth. Just try to talk about love and acceptance even if it’s your own child who is gay and all you get is a yeah, but…..
Might as well be blinded like Galileo.
One of the lessons we should learn from Galileo is that our understanding is never complete. Instead, our understanding of the world around us continually evolves. Present theories, no matter how sound they feel at the time, are almost always replaced or refined by other (also soon to be corrected) theories. In Galileo’s case, the heliocentric system he advocated does explain the world better than the earth-centered (Ptolemaic) system. But we’ve learned since then that even Galileo’s sun-centered theory isn’t completely correct. Galileo also believed that the orbits of the sun and planets are circular. (They aren’t). His concepts of gravity needed correction as well. The pattern is clear. Whatever present theory of the universe one holds, parts of it will also almost certainly be proven wrong in the future and need refinement or even full replacement. Even parts of Einstein’s theories of the universe have since needed correction.
So, to *fully* apply Galileo’s example to Janey’s conclusions… We need to be equally cautious about todays theories on sex, gender and reproduction. If they follow the pattern set by Galileo (or even Einstein), they may explain the world better than the theories they replaced. They may feel completely correct in the present. But parts of them will almost certainly yet be proven incomplete or even need full replacement.