You will recall that back in ’05 a certain Dr. Sternberg was in the midst of a tizzy regarding his allowing of the publishing of an ID-friendly article by Stephen C. Meyer. There was quite a hullaballo about the whole matter, and subsequent mess was no fun to wade through. Basically, the uproar was over whether Sternberg, a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, had, because of his personal proclivities and agendas, allowed an article to be published without going through the proper peer-review process (it had). You can read more here. (Normal rules of Wikipedia and grains of salt apply.)

Step foward to today, where a report prepared by staff on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, entitled Intolerance And The Politicization Of Science At The Smithsonian, has surfaced. In it, allegations are brought against persons at the Smithsonian who, in documented email communications, voiced their intentions to use their positions of authority at the Smithsonian to force Sternberg out as a Research Associate. Allow me to quote a section of the executive summary:

“The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.”

Now ignore for the time being that the report is coming from lame duck Reps. Mike Souder and Rick Santorum, and that their being advocates of Intelligent Design apparently (according to certain sources, anyways) makes every move they make suspect. If the report is correct, is there a problem? Most assuredly so. Government employees should expect to be free from reprisal in any form, much less losing their job, because they hold to a scientific viewpoint that is in dissension with the majority. Now think about what we would expect to see if the roles were reversed. What if the Intelligent Design was the de facto standard for scientists, and Dr. Stenberg fostered the publishing of an article that criticized ID, then his colleagues tried to use their clout to force him to resign. Would we scoff and say “Oh, the report must surely be biased because the representatives are proponents of Darwinian evolution.”? Most assuredly not.

Hopefully the emergence of this report will help to bring to light other instances of scientists being discriminated against because they don’t toe the line with their brethren. In November of 2005, NPR reported that it had “talked with 18 university professors and scientists who subscribe to intelligent design. Most would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs. One untenured professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia wrote that talking to NPR would be, quote ‘the kiss of death.’ Another said, ‘There is no way I would reveal myself prior to obtaining tenure.’” (You can view the article and listen to the audio here.)

Some more quick thoughts from Chesterton, this one about “The Riddle of the Nativity.” In the Everlasting Man, Chesterton devotes two chapters (The God in the Cave; The Riddle of the Gospel) to the alien (that is, otherworldly) nature of the good news.

Have you ever stopped to think about the idiosyncrasies in the nativity/incarnation story? Thought about what exactly it meant for the Most High God of Heaven to be born below the earth? That is, if the traditional view of the stable in a cave is correct? There’s something topsy-turvy in that, in the whole of the Nativity story. Chesterton says that nothing else had happened except the whole world had turned inside out. All the eyes that were faced outward at the huge expanse of the universe were now turned inward at the smallest thing, a child in a feed trough.

Such a strange story. Everything about it is backwards. The omnipotent creator was born as an impotent babe. The eternal, everlasting Alpha and Omega lay in a manger, just minutes old. The Holy One of God emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and born in flesh came into a world not worthy of his pinkie toe. And not only did those toes walk the earth among us, their owner washed the toes of his disciples. Out in the open you have the angels of heaven meeting with the shepherds on the hills, but the ruler of heaven was beneath the hills.

In Hebrews it says that we have a high priest who is able to sympathize with our plight. How many are there that can sympathize with his? If anyone in the entirety of human existence ever deserved a high birth, it was he, but he was born in a dank cave. Sure, there are persons who can (unfortunately) say they were born in a back-alley, or a brothel. There are even some kings who could say they were “born low”. But there is only one King of Kings who can say as much. There is only One was can say “I, God, was born in a cave.”

Note that that cave was most likely crowded with animals, since it was during the census; not exactly the most pristine conditions for birthing a child. And while the people in the inn rolicked about, their king was sleeping under their very noses. Have you ever thought about what it would have been like to be that inn keeper? You have the ponderously pregnant Mary, and the watchful, nervous Joseph, and you turn them out into the cold. Or hot. I honestly don’t know what time of year the census was at. I think I read that it actually might have taken place over a period of a couple years. Anyways, not only could this inn-keeper not find room for a very pregnant woman and her husband, not only did he turn this young couple aside, he turned aside his messiah. Now I know that probably this inn keeper never knew exactly who he had shut the door on. News of Jesus’ heritage might not have spread out to Bethlehem before this guy was gone. But what if it had? What if this person found out that the Promised One was born out among the animals because he didn’t have room. The thought sends chills down my spine. And, of course, perhaps I’m reading too much into it. Perhaps it was convention to not elevate expectant mothers, like we do (parking spaces and all). Perhaps there literally wasn’t any room, and the inn keeper had people sleeping on every surface, stoop to cellar, and he couldn’t admit more without turning out others. I guess we’ll find out in the millennial kingdom.

I’d like to end this post with a poem by Chesterton entitled Gloria In Profundis:

There has fallen on earth for a token

A god too great for the sky.

He has burst out of all things and broken

The bounds of eternity:

Into time and the terminal land

He has strayed like a thief or a lover,

For the wine of the world brims over,

Its splendour is split on the sand.

Who is proud when the heavens are humble,

Who mounts if the mountains fall,

If the fixed stars topple and tumble

And a deluge of love drowns all-

Who rears up his head for a crown,

Who holds up his will for a warrant,

Who strives with the starry torrent,

When all that is good goes down?

For in dread of such falling and failing

The fallen angels fell

Inverted in insolence, scaling

The hanging mountain of hell:

But unmeasured of plummet and rod

Too deep for their sight to scan,

Outrushing the fall of man

Is the height of the fall of God.

Glory to God in the Lowest

The spout of the stars in spate-

Where thunderbolt thinks to be slowest

And the lightning fears to be late:

As men dive for sunken gem

Pursuing, we hunt and hound it,

The fallen star has found it

In the cavern of Bethlehem.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Ben Witherington had an informative blog post regarding the start of Advent and the Christian new year. I was not aware of this, which might be due to my protestant, non-denominational upbringing, but apparently there is indeed a Christian new year. Much like there is a Chinese new year, and a secular new year, which we (yes, Christians) celebrate on January 1st.

The Christian new year is marked by the first day of Advent, that is, the fourth Sunday before Christmas. Now Advent is a holy season of preparation in expectation of the Nativity (Dec. 25th). It runs from the first Sunday to December 24th, Christmas Eve. Christmas Day follows, of course, and it is followed by the 12 Days of Christmas which run from the 26th to the Feast of Epiphany on January 6th. That’s right, the retailers have it backwards. The Twelve Days begin with Christmas, they don’t end on it.

The beginning of advent is traditionally meant to be a time focusing on the Second Coming of Christ. Actually the root adventus literally means “coming”. This is interesting to me. For centuries before us Christians began (and ended, the Sunday beginning the new year also ends the old one) the year with a period of reflection on the future coming of Christ. Then they commemorated the first coming (Nativity) on Christmas. It at first seemed chronologically backwards to my modern mind, but after some thinking it makes sense. Past Christians rang in the new year with teaching, preaching, reflection and exhortation regarding the triumphal return of Jesus. Both the end and start of their year was marked by a focused awareness of the future. We also do this (sort of) on January 1st, but with such a secularistic bent that it’s basically devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Only afterwards (in my mind) did they reflect back on the first coming of the God-man, not to diminish it, but to place it in the proper order. The incarnation/crucifixtion/resurrection was the singlemost important event, or series of events, in all of human existence (bar creation, possibly). The second coming is the most important event coming down the pike in the future.

I know that clarion calls to hark back to the “reason for the season” are numerous and often unnoticed; not much penetrates our post-modern density. But perhaps a semi-liturgical, ecclesiastic tradition of marking the Advent season wouldn’t be an all-bad thing for our post-Christian culture. It certainly couldn’t hurt.