World Views

Darwin's Two Weeks in Court

July 10th marked the One Hundred and First anniversary of "The Scopes Monkey Trial." How I missed the Centennial event is beyond explanation, but only a year late is better than letting it pass by without any comment. In 1925 the state of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which made it a misdemeanor to teach any theory that denied the the Biblical truth of divine creation. The ACLU wanted to challenge the law's constitutionality and so they placed an add in the Chattanooga Daily Times newspaper offering to defend any teacher who would teach evolution. Enter John T. Scopes, a twenty four year old high school substitute teacher and football coach, who never taught biology before, a useful idiot if there ever was one. Scopes was recruited surreptitiously to teach a lecture on evolution by local business leaders, in order to reap publicity by creating a '"tourism trial" and thereby filling their coffers. Scopes was the substitute that day for the regular Biology teacher and taught from a text book that had evolution in it. Tennessee v Scopes was nearly a two week's long trial that became a national sensation. It was the first trial ever broadcast live on radio. WGN, Radio a 50,000 watt blow torch out of Chicago can be heard throughout the Midwest and East Coast, broadcasted the event at a cost of $1000.00 a day. The trial had become a circus that P.T. Barnum would have been proud of. To add to the excitement two famous legal juggernauts squared off, Williams Jennings Bryan for the prosecution v Clarence Darrow for the defense.

So what was the outcome? After two weeks of testimony, the jury deliberated for nine minutes, and by a unanimous decision found the defendant guilty. The judge fined Scopes $100.00. Two years later the State Supreme Court overthrew the appealed conviction on a technicality, the Jury, not the Judge was to decide the fine. The statute was never used again to prosecute a case and was only taken off the books in 1967 by the state legislature. After the trial, Scopes said he really didn't remember if indeed he had taught a lesson on evolution or not.

What really was on trial those two weeks in July 101 years ago? It wasn't about whether or not Mr. Scopes would be convicted of a misdemeanor. How could that ever have elicited the rapt national attention over a trial that would be akin to watching Traffic Court about a disputed parking ticket. No, this was the roaring twenties version of the OJ trial, in terms of national interest. It was a trial of Worldviews, pitting Naturalism against the Christian Worldview. If Darwin's theory would stand, there would be no need for a Divine Creator. According to Darwin we evolved from primordial soup over billions of years, by chance, and favorable mutations; we evolved from a one celled organism, step by step, into complex human beings. The mystery of life could then be explained only through biological processes, there is no soul or the metaphysical. We are but a product of time and chance, a perambulating vessel of water and chemical reactions, living meaningless lives. The 'elephant in the courtroom,' was the question begging to be asked, "Who is your God, is it Science or is it the Creator God of the Universe?" Darrow's intent as an ACLU lawyer was to mock the Bible and Bible believing Christians, painting them as "bigots and ignoramuses," who sought to control education in America. The Hollywood liberal spin machine took the reins after the trial making the movie Inherit the Wind, which portrayed Darrow as standing for the cause of science and progress, against the backwardness and intolerance of Bible believing Christians. Unfortunately, this is the narrative that many Americans believe today. Despite the fact that science has debunked Darwin's theory, it is still taught as fact in our High Schools and Universities. Those who oppose and speak out against evolution are shunned by peers and cancelled. This is the legacy of the Scopes Trial, a farcical publicity stunt that changed history for the worse.

Pittsburgh's Mayor Gainey's Silence on Anti-Semitic Referendum is Deafening

The "The No War Crimes on Our Dime," activist group, collected 15,000 signatures to place on this November's ballot a referendum which would prohibit Pittsburgh from doing business with any entities including nonprofits that conduct business operations with or in the country of Israel. At a time when antisemitic activity nationwide is on the rise, it is a sad thing to witness Pittsburgh throwing in with other progressive cities to join the hate parade. The left wing Democratic Socialists of America is the source of funding for the operation. To quote Lenin, there is a long line of "useful idiots"  to serve his propaganda needs in America. Fast forward to 2024 and we have found some in our midst to do the bidding of their leftist masters right here in "River City." It was only eight short years ago when The Tree of Life Synagogue shootings occured and left in its wake eleven souls murdered, shocked our City and Nation. Now this. 

I am sick and tired of of black hoodie wearing, sloganeering, drum banging, "useful idiots" taking over and destroying our city streets and neighborhoods in this country, and now they are here. Israel, Jews and those that side with them are just the latest target. It's not hard to figure out who's next. Israel always has had the moral high ground in this never ending war against the very existence of the Jewish State. Genocide is what would happen to them if they did not defend themselves. 

I call on Mayor Gainey to renounce this attempt to legislate an antisemitic law on to our city's books and to do what he can to defeat it. It is his duty and a moral imperative to do so. So far his silence is deafening. I hope that if you are a city resident you would take this into account when you cast your vote for the next mayor.

We Are Already Gone

Ever since Beverly Heights left the UPC, I have taken a great deal of interest in following in the news of other mainline denominational issues. Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Baptists, Presbyterians and all the various off-shoots of each are struggling or have struggled with the same issues we have and are now. Here we are, once again, in a similar position with the EPC.

Liberal Protestantism began in the 18th. century out of a perceived need to adapt Christianity to a modern intellectual context. With the acceptance of Darwins Theory of Evolution and Enlightenment philosophy, we have ushered into the church a demand for new ways of thinking about the relationship between religion, culture and science. By the early 1960's mainline churches had reached a zenith in growth, membership and the long slow decline had begun and continues to this day. The proud protestant tradition that was instrumental in the founding of our country, its laws and the fabric of our constitutional republic, has been lost. Church bells ringing on Sunday mornings have been replaced by rainbow flags in front of empty cathedrals whose stained glass windows use to rattle with the preaching of the Word of God and the singing of hymns. There are many reasons cited for this decline. I would contend that the rejection by the church of Scripture as God's Word, as His external calling to us through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is paramount to its decline.

Where have the leaders of the EPC been, while this history has been playing out before their eyes? Have they had their heads in the sand and now that they have surfaced, what do they see? They see racism in the church, they see "white privilege," Critical Race Theory and future rainbow flags flying in front of their EPC churches? They must be thinking, "Shouldn't we be woke like our brothers and sisters in the Mainline Churches?" I see history repeating itself.

We cannot leave this broken denomination fast enough. For the past year and a half we have seen their true colors exposed and it isn't pretty. They have been dishonest, rude, conniving, and unjust in their dealings with our congregation. Even after signing an agreement in front of a Judge they have tried to renege on it. How about letting your yes be yes, and your no be no? (Matthew 5:27)

I have been to several Presbytery meetings and I walked away from each shaking my head in disgust with how things were being run and presented. The only movement out of its members besides raising hands to vote in agreement with the leadership, was the thundering herd when L-U-N-C-H  T-I-M-E was announced.