Talking about Christian and Scientific Fundamentalism

 

"One of the strongest critics of religion says he doesn’t really blame the average Christian for holding naïve views of Bible or simple ideas of God. But he criticizes religious leaders -- who presumably have been educated -- for failing publicly and blatantly to disapprove of the naïve views of the masses."

                                                                                                  - Thomas Jay Oord

 

 

 

Christian and Scientific Fundamentalism

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/christian_and_scientific_fundamentalism/#.UF-RO8V-RLN

 

by Thomas Jay Oord

February 16, 2012

Comments

 

I spend a great deal of time engaging fundamentalists. And I’ve learned a few lessons over the years.

 

As a professor of theology at an Evangelical university, a good portion of students enter my undergraduate classes as Christian fundamentalists. Many claim that the Bible is their sole, absolute, and inerrant authority. “Nothing but the Bible” is their mantra.

 

Many of these Christian fundamentalist students are intelligent -- if SAT scores are any indication. They are not exposed to the wider world of knowledge, however.

 

Many students are suspicious and dismissive of liberal arts education. Many are wary of even rationality itself if rationality does not support their particular view of the Bible.

 

If experience -- their own experience, the experience of others, or experiences of those in the larger Christian tradition -- contradicts their view that the Bible is inerrant and the authority on all it teaches, then that experience should not be trusted.

 

An inerrant Bible is their trump card for just about any discussion.

 

Those who think differently than these Christian fundamentalists on biblical, theological, or socio-political matters may become the objects of sharp criticism. At its worst, this criticism includes demonizing rhetoric.

 

To fundamentalists, any move away from inerrancy and the comprehensive authority of the Bible is to slide down a slippery slope to extreme relativism and atheism. The Christian fundamentalist view of ultimate truth is narrow. It is limited to what their inerrant Bible affirms and their community approves as consonant with a particular interpretation of the Bible.

 

I also engage another set of fundamentalists.

 

These people are scientific fundamentalists. I engage them less often face-to-face. My interaction with them is more often online, in private meetings, at scholarly events, or in journal debates.

Scientific fundamentalists have as their sole authority a particular set of ideas and theories proposed by some scientists. They believe science provides the ultimate and/or unparalleled source of truth. Scientific fundamentalists reject out of hand any theory, intellectual tradition, or claim that is not in line with their particular scientific theories.

Many scientific fundamentalists are bright -- or “Brites,” as some call themselves. Of course, others are not so smart.

Whatever their intelligence, scientific fundamentalists share many things in common with Christian fundamentalists. While Christian fundamentalists are largely dismissive of reason and a broad range of scholarship that does not support their narrow biblical view, scientific fundamentalists largely dismiss reasoning and broad-ranging scholarship that does not support their narrow scientific views. Both groups restrict what they will accept as ultimately truth only to that which their small community allows.

Scientific fundamentalists are even more prone than Christian fundamentalists to reject experience -- the experience of others and their own -- if experience contradicts their scientific theories. Take the issue of purpose, for example. While scientific fundamentalists know themselves to be purposive, they allow no place in their scientific descriptions for purpose.

We should criticize scientific fundamentalists even more sharply than Christian fundamentalists, however, for ignoring the truths of experience that don’t fit their scientific theories. They are more irresponsible, because they claim to defend an enterprise -- science -- that purports to rely chiefly upon empirical evidence.

For my own part, I think the biggest flaw in the scientific fundamentalism is the inability to speak plausibly about a supremely important element of creaturely experience: Love.

I suggest that science in general follow a general rule when it comes to proposing theories to account empirically for existence in general and human experience in particular. My general rule is this: we should not allow that which we seem to know least -- for instance, the role and function of genes -- to trump that which we seem to know best -- our own personal experience -- for instance, our experience of purposefulness, beauty, warmth and affection, or sacrificial love.

This principle provides a basis to value the extensive and widespread human experience of religion. Thousands of years of study on the religious experiences of billions of people suggest that religious motivations and intuitions are widespread, complex, varied, and pluralistic.

To claim that something about which we know very little -- genes -- completely explains our religious intuitions and motivations seems foolish, shortsighted, and likely false. Reductionism reveals itself woefully inadequate when we consider the powerful empirical data of human experience.

So… what should be done about scientific fundamentalism?

My experience with both Christian fundamentalists and scientific fundamentalists suggests several strategies of engagement. Briefly, here are seven suggestions for how to engage scientific fundamentalists:

1. We should point out the internal inconsistencies of scientific fundamentalism. The work being done on altruism, cooperation, and self-sacrifice in evolutionary biology interests me most and seems vital for this task.

2. We should point out inconsistencies between the theories espoused by scientific fundamentalists and our own human experiences. Many scientific fundamentalists who call themselves “the New Atheists,” for instance, want a world in which cooperation and peace can reign. And yet scientific fundamentalism provides no robust way to account for attaining widespread peace, benevolence, and cooperation.

3. We should appeal to research and wisdom in diverse academic disciplines, religious traditions, and forms of knowledge. We should embrace explanatory pluralism. One characteristic of a wise person is his/her capacity to engage a wide variety of knowledge in a respectful and appreciative way.

4. We should seek to establish moral authority. Many who are either fundamentalist or attracted to fundamentalism are unlikely to reject fundamentalism based on our clever arguments alone. We need to be trustworthy people. Fundamentalists of all stripes need to see moral examples whom they can believe with their heads and their hearts.

5. We should listen carefully and charitably to scientific fundamentalists. For instance, some criticisms of religion are justified criticisms. Justified criticisms can help theists frame their theology in ways that make better sense in light of scripture and science -- and help both believers and unbelievers understand what Christians are saying.

6. We should avoid shrill and demonizing rhetoric. Not all fundamentalists use shrill and demonizing rhetoric. But some surely do. Rather than fight fire with fire, I believe progress can be made by fighting fire with friendship, caricatures with kindness, hyperbole with humility. We all must work to develop various intellectual virtues, including considering our opponents’ views in the strongest possible light. We must not criticize the log of pride in the scientific fundamentalist’s eye and while simultaneously sticking that log in our own.

7. We should engage the arguments of scientific fundamentalists as a way to educate those in our religious communities. One of the strongest critics of religion says he doesn’t really blame the average Christian for holding naïve views of Bible or simple ideas of God. But he criticizes religious leaders -- who presumably have been educated -- for failing publicly and blatantly to disapprove of the naïve views of the masses. Christian leaders fail to act bravely to provide interpretations of the Bible and views of science that oppose the unsophisticated views of those who sit in the pews.

Of course, this kind of education is risky. In my own Evangelical context, the stakes are high. To speak out against a naïve view of the Bible and Christian fundamentalism is sometimes to face dire consequences. The temptation to remain silent is extremely strong.

While warfare has not always and everywhere characterized the interaction between science and religion, warfare is surely a common motif in some communities.

I admit there are times that I am personally doubtful that fundamentalists of both types -- Christian fundamentalists and scientific fundamentalists -- will ever give up their narrow views of what counts as truth. I worry that fundamentalists will never find the wisdom of the broad arena of wide-ranging experience and expansive reason. I am tempted sometimes to relent to hopelessness.

But in those times of bleakness, a flash of light invariably breaks in. That flash of light comes from my own experience. After all, I was once a Christian fundamentalist. I know firsthand that real change can occur.

If a hard-headed, Bible-thumping, piously passionate, former inerrantist like me can shed his narrow thinking without rejecting his Christian faith, there is hope for other fundamentalists -- both scientific and Christian.

I encourage us all to engage scientific and religious fundamentalists -- in our own ways and in our own settings. I encourage us to do so in the hope that creative transformation and the widening of perspectives might occur. I encourage us to do so for the love of wisdom and the wisdom of love.



 

An Interview with Peter Enns - "The Nature of Scripture and the Question of Evolution"

A "Beyond the Box" Interview with Peter Enns

http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/2012/09/the-nature-of-scripture-and-the-question-of-evolution-with-peter-enns/

September 16, 2012

 

In this episode Ray is joined by Dr. Peter Enns for a discussion about the ideas in his books Inspiration and Incarnation and The Evolution of Adam. 

• What is the nature of Scripture?
 
• How are we to understand the balance between divine inspiration and human authorship in Scripture?
 
• Was Adam an historical person?

Join us for a discussion about these questions and more! Make sure to check out both Inspiration and Incarnation and The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns for a more in-depth look into the issues addressed in this episode and visit his blog at http://peterennsonline.com/.

Click to Hear -

 

http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/2012/09/the-nature-of-scripture-and-the-question-of-evolution-with-peter-enns/

 

or Download -

 

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:18:50 — 72.2MB)

 

   


 

Updating Our Language of Genesis

Seven Glorious Days: An Interview with Karl Giberson

http://www.patheos.com/Progressive-Christian/Seven-Glorious-Days-Jonathan-Fitzgerald-09-18-2012.html#.UFn9b6xAcMk.facebook

 

by Jonathan D. Fitzgerald

September 17, 2012

 

As a Christian, a scientist, and a firm believer that evolution doesn't contradict scripture, Giberson has become a hero for likeminded evangelicals.

 

Karl Giberson is no stranger to controversy. Though, if you choose to write to and for evangelicals in defense of science, you'd have to expect as much. As a scientist himself, and a firm believer that evolution doesn't contradict scripture, Giberson has become a hero for likeminded evangelicals. His work with Francis Collins in establishing BioLogos has gone far to institutionalize these views.

 

And yet, if you're on the other side, if you're a strict biblical literalist and a young earth creationist, Giberson and his views are a constant thorn in your side. In his various teaching positions—at Eastern Nazarene College for over twenty-five years, at Gordon College, and most recently at Stonehill College—and with the publication of each of his nine books, controversy has followed him.

 

This was perfectly illustrated in a recent Facebook post on the page of a group called "Concerned Nazarenes." A commenter on that page wrote of Giberson, "I am thankful he has left ENC, because he has spent years there poisoning the minds of many youth. He will have much to answer to the Lord unless he repents."

 

When Giberson reposted this note on his own Facebook page, it garnered over seventy-five responses in less than 24 hours from friends and fellow faculty, but mostly from students, thanking him for "poisoning" their minds.

 

Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down with Giberson in the student center at Eastern Nazarene (where I began teaching after he left to pursue other opportunities) to talk about his latest book, Seven Glorious Days.

 

Tell me a bit of the story of this book. I understand it was initially planned as part of your book with Francis Collins.

 

The idea of the book is something that I always wanted to do. Many scholars feel that the way you have to look at Genesis is to keep apart the theology and the primitive science that's there. And the unwillingness of fundamentalists to do that simple hermeneutic exercise is what gives rise to the evangelical rejection of so much modern science.

 

So, at the very end of the book with Collins [The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions] I thought, let me do a simple creative exercise in which I take Genesis and transform the text into what I think it would look like if it was written today.

 

The exercise worked and I sent it to some scholars and everyone liked it. But in the final editorial stages of the process, my editor expressed a concern that though the book we had written had the potential to be influential among evangelicals—it was thoroughly orthodox, evangelical in its tone, and Collins and I were respected within the community—all the things that would be useful about it would be undermined by the last chapter. Readers would say, who do they think they are rewriting scripture.

 

I think this reflects the low value evangelicals place on art; what I was doing was a creative, not theological exercise, but I was inclined to cooperate with my editor. So I just took that out. I left in the story to some degree, but I didn't try to tie it to any rewrite of Genesis.

 

The book was successful and we were all happy with that, but I kind of had this project sitting around. So I approached Lil Copan who was an editor at Paraclete at the time and she liked it a lot. She suggested that I write a little short book—she described it as the kind of thing you do in a long weekend. She really liked the sample chapter a lot, and made some great suggestions and then brought it to the marketing people there. They said they wanted to publish it, but they liked it so much that they wanted to boost it from a 20,000-word book to 40-45,000. So they asked me to do that.

 

How should readers approach this book? How was the process of writing it different from your other books?

 

The book needs to be understood as a creative exercise. It's as if someone said, paint a picture of Jesus at Starbucks, or tell a story about Jesus going to Walmart. You have to give someone creative license to do that.

 

One of the first things I had to do was figure out how to divide the history of the universe from the big bang to the present into seven periods. And I'm not doing that because I want to suggest that the days of Genesis are 2 billion years long and if you just make that change everything will line up, but it's a way to keep it connected to the Genesis story. [In fact, the seven days are a literary idiom to help tell the story of creation and should not be viewed as a stepwise progression of evolution. - res2]

 

Also, we understand now that the creative processes that gave birth to the universe don't really stop, so I had to figure that out. That's quite different scientifically and theologically from most of Genesis.

Then, the modern scientific picture comes across as much more deistic than the biblical story does. So I had to think about how to handle that. We don't understand creation today as involving all kinds of divine interventions to do things, but as Christians we affirm that God's creative work is unfolding throughout history.

 

So those all involve making artistic decisions. I hope it will be read on those terms.

 

Is this book an effort to convince people who don't believe in evolution that it is, in fact, compatible with faith?

 

I used to be more idealistic and think all we needed to do is to get good arguments in circulation. But, I'm a lot more pessimistic now. I think that the people who oppose contemporary science are going to oppose it no matter what.

 

So this is really more of a book written for the faithful to let them enjoy their "liberal apostasy" in a way they couldn't before.

 

That said, it has the potential to be very convincing, especially for evangelicals who don't feel the need to be biblical literalists. They can buy into this and see that this is a grand story; there are a lot of people who think the secular origin story is quite wonderful. There's no reason why people can't be drawn to that position.

 

But I don't feel like you're going to get that many people to change their minds. I think we're at a cultural moment where people believe what they want and become immune to information. And they can always find some credentialed expert to tell them that they're right.

 

Paraclete is not one of the big evangelical publishers in the same way as some of the others you've worked with. How was that experience different?

 

The book is a reflection of my own spiritual journey. Like so many mid-career academics I share the feeling that evangelicalism has abandoned us, in a sense. It went somewhere over the course of our adult life and adopted a public face which is anti-intellectual and anti-science. It became very political and obsessed with a few social issues at the expense of the broader gospel. So I'm quite happy to say that I want to speak to audiences that have evolved past evangelicalism or were never in that community to begin with.

 

This is a book that an evangelical press might feel uneasy about because of the way it handles scripture. But a more Catholic-oriented press is a better place for it.

 

Though, I should say, Paraclete isn't really a Catholic press. I would describe them as a broadly Christian press. However, many of the emails I receive do come from sister this or sister that. I mean, my publicist is a nun.

 

So, I know you're teaching at Stonehill College and working on your tenth book. What's next for you?

 

I'm loving my position at Stonehill. I'm a professor of writing, which is the career transformation I've wanted and have been looking for for many years. I'm teaching writing intensive science and religion classes there.

 

Also, the American Scientific Affiliation is trying to launch a dramatically upgraded version of their magazine God and Nature, and they've asked me to be senior editor on that project.

 

And the Adam book. The working title is Saving Adam. Of course, I already have a book called Saving Darwin. I guess if I write a memoir it will probably be called Saving Karl.

 

Anyway, it's going to be a book that will try to illuminate the current controversy over whether Adam has to be understood as a historical figure or not. I'm going to look at how we got our ideas about Adam—when certain views became very important, and how the church has responded as evidence began to mount that Adam might not have been the first man.

 

Great. Thanks for your time. Anything else you want to mention?

 

Well, the book is out and people should buy it.

 

 

Jonathan D. Fitzgerald is the managing editor of Patrolmag.com, and writes on the various manifestations of Christianity in culture. Follow him on Twitter or at his website, www.jonathandfitzgerald.com.

 

Fitzgerald's column, "In Progress," is published every Wednesday on the Progressive Christian Portal. Subscribe via email or RSS.

 

 

 

 

Book Review: Reading Genesis After Darwin

I am posting here some random thoughts about the composition of Genesis relative to its literary and scientific structure from an archaeological point of view found in the article below but will leave it to the reader to draw out any important inferences that I noticed on a cursory reading. Let it suffice that when reading Genesis (as we would any portion of the Bible) that we do not let our "perceptions" or "biases" get in the way of seeing the biblical text for itself written and compiled by the Hebrews so many long years ago as noted by these several, albeit overly simplistic, and pedantic, questions:

Did God speak Hebrew? Or is it possible that God speaks all the languages of the world - even the ancient ones? Did Adam speak in Hebrew? Did Eve speak in Hebrew? If not, what language did Adam and Eve speak? Is Hebrew the oldest language of the world? Or were there other, much older languages that were spoken during the time of Genesis 1-11? Is it possible that the literary texts of Genesis were re-written in light of Hebrew beliefs and traditions? Or might we expect that there were much older beliefs and traditions that proceeded the Hebrew traditions that ran counter to the more informed, revelatory beliefs and traditions of the Hebrews? That within ancient near eastern lands there were older stories of creation, the flood, and migration of non-Hebrew cultures and societies throughout the Tigris-Euphrates region? Or, for that matter, throughout the lands of North Africa, to Asia Minor, to the Middle East, and eastwards and northwards towards Asia and beyond?

And to John Walton's important observation that the creation story of Genesis speaks to the "temple motif" of the bible (referring to the holiness of God's creative universe, of His sanctuary and place where we may commune with our Creator as He may with us) let us also note N.T. Wright's observation that Genesis also carries within it an "election motif" beginning with Adam and Eve and continuing to the line of Abraham that culminates in the covenants of God to Israel, and later the Church, written in the New Covenant of Christ's blood. (Please understand that the biblical theme of "election" does not refer to Calvinism's systematic theology of "election." The former is derived from a study of biblical theology; the latter from a systematic theological study of logical inferences made from biblical texts that conform to a self-defining set of  Protestant-Christian church traditions.... For more on this area please refer to the appropriate sidebars on this website such as election, universalism, covenants, salvation, etc.). We might also note themes of "protection" and "salvation" in stories about the "ark" of God (both Noah's watery Ark and in Israel's traditions of the Ark of the Covenant); themes of "guidance and subtenance" (both election and sovereignty) by God that resulted in Israel's formation and direction; themes of "remnant theology" speaking to the arisal of a specific people of God to tell God's story (or revelation) of love, providence, provision, and salvation; themes of holiness , righteous acts, and servanthood of God on behalf of His people; and the list may go on-and-on....

So that when reading Genesis we discover many important themes of God's attendance and involvement in the stories of mankind. In humanity's stories of personal redemption and salvation. In our stories of protection, election, guidance, and holiness. Not in mystical, magical ways but in the everyday narrative acts observed unnoticed around-and-about us (we call this synchronicity). From our music choices, to our habits and behaviors, to our activities and personal preferences, to our friends and experiences. Within this amazingly complex web of interpersonal engagement with our environment, with humanity, and within time itself God is constructing His personal story of love and redemption that reaches out to us. That would help us make sense of our time and purpose in this life we call myopically our own while little understanding or noticing that each of us is involved in the larger story of God's redemption cosmically, nationally, culturally, societally, personally, and even temporally. For this is the God who seeks us. Who calls out to us. Who does not tire in His patient love to us. Nor forget His election of creation to redeem and bind up sin's woes and miseries so prominent in our willful neglect, purpose, and imaginations.

Consequently, no one person is left unengaged by God. Each person is directed by the hands of the divine immortal Creator within this free-willed world towards apprehending his or her's larger scope and purpose in life. To deny God's presence in our lives is to deny the very spiritual air that we breathe. That we must breathe-in and breathe-out "God's Spirit" whether we admit it or not. For through Jesus has God said, "You are mine." And it is in Jesus' path of apprehending God that we must come if we are to know our Creator-Sustainer-Provider. Through faith. Through self-sacrificial trust and belief. Through actions divine and holy in giving ourselves to the Holy One of Israel and to the creative God of the cosmos. To obeying God's will and directive in our lives. To worship, praise, laud and glory the unfathomable One. To reach towards some thing - or some One - larger than ourselves. Larger than our meager plans and purposes in our self-consuming lives. To apprehend God through Jesus' presence and example, life and death, that recreates this world in partnership with God towards His plans and purposes. This is the story of creation. The real story of redemption. The story that matters. The narrative thread that runs through the tapestry of our lives.

Lastly, as regarding splicing biblical texts together please refer to these several articles here below to show that this is not a new observation. That the Genesis text has been "spliced" together from an array of sources to recreate a single running narrative theme (or theology) of mankind's story. A story both ancient and blessed, and filled with the Spirit of God's love, grace and mercy in our lives. Regardless of whether the splice came from a priestly source (P) or Yahwistic source (J) the story has been made one by latter day Hebrews around the time of the Second Temple Restoration (approx. c.587 B.C.) to tell us that God loves us and is actively engaged within this world as He is within our messed-up, imperfect lives. If God can create from the black tangle of cosmic void and chaos  (tahom) of this world we call Earth, let us not think that He cannot untangle the black void and chaos within our lives that we call us. It'll take courage and trust on our behalf to admit that without God all is chaotic and unfathomable within our lives. But in Christ Jesus may the light of a new dawn arise in our hearts-and-lives to remake what once was lost, found. Let this attitude and belief begin this day with bowed heads and knees, in the unshakable confidence, or conviction, that God must become our All-in-All both now, and forevermore. Amen.

R.E. Slater
September 19, 2012

Any Relevancy22 Sidebars under "Bible" or "Hermeneutics"

My JEDP Observations of Biblical Cultural Preservation

 

Historical Timelines of Bible Translations & Biblical Texts

 

National Geographic - The King James Bible

 

Text & Culture - The Relevancy of God's Word to Contemporary Culture

 

Difficulties in Translating the Bible: ESV Video Session

 

Christian Smith - Introduction: The Bible Made Impossible

 

How Should We Read the Bible?

 

 

 

 

Book Description

 

Publication Date: November 11, 2009

 

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species has changed the landscape of religious thought in many ways. There is a widespread assumption that before Darwin, all Christians believed that the world was created some 6,000 years ago over a period of 6 days. After Darwin, the first chapters of Genesis were either rejected totally by skeptics or defended vehemently in scientific creationism. This book tells a very different story. Bringing together contributions from biblical scholars, historians and contemporary theologians, it is demonstrated that both Jewish and Christian scholars read Genesis in a non-literal way long before Darwin. Even during the nineteenth century, there was a wide range of responses from religious believers towards evolution, many of them very positive. Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson argue that being receptive to the continuing relevance of Genesis today regarding questions of gender, cosmology, and the environment is a lively option.

 

 

 

Genesis — Its Internal Clues

 

Scot McKnight

September 19, 2012

Comments

 

 

Letting Genesis be Genesis is a challenge — from the creationist, who wants it to be compatible with science or science with it, to the naturalist-evolutionist, who wants to debunk the text from the outset as hocus pocus. Both ends of the spectrum claim they are reading Genesis well, but not all have paid sufficient attention to the internal clues in the text.

Walter Moberly, well known Old Testament specialist at Durham University in England, has the internal clues in mind when he writes “How Should One Read The Early Chapters of Genesis?,” in S.C. Barton and D. Wilkinson’s Reading Genesis after Darwin. What Moberly wants to do is let Genesis be Genesis and not what we’d like it to be.

What do you think of Moberly’s evidence for splicing?

Do you think division of labor indicates later date?

His basic conclusion is that the early chapters of Genesis reflect the splicing together of formerly separate stories so that, while the text reads well from chp 1 to 50, there are at times internal clues that various bits had different contexts originally. This view has become more and more acceptable to a wide range of evangelicals though some have to say so in hushed tones to those whom they trust. Nor should one dismiss that such a view does cut against the grain of what many believe about the Bible, though we must take a deep breath and say “I too want Genesis to be Genesis. So let’s see what it says.”

This question is not new. Origen was asking these very questions in the 3d Century AD, and he did not conclude what the conservative end of the spectrum today concludes. But I’m not concerned with Moberly’s quick sketch of Origen.

Instead of dipping into Genesis 1-3, Moberly begins with Cain and Abel. His big conclusion is that the text assumes a world that is already populated, suggesting then that it tells one major story — the need for obedience — in the categories of a world that does not assume Cain and Abel are the world’s first sons. In short, there are other people and cities around. Here are the texts:

Genesis 4:2 - “Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil…” assuming a division of labor.

Gen. 4:8 - Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.” The assumption here is that it is safer to murder in the open field where no one else is around, the language and perspective a populated location.

Gen. 4:14 - Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Again, population assumed.

Moberly doesn’t quite draw this conclusion, but I would: this kind of description shows that at work already is the doctrine of election, so prominent later in Genesis but throughout the Bible: God was working with the line that would lead to Abraham. I heard Tom (N.T.) Wright say election is at work in God choosing Adam and Eve from others to be the ones [who would bear] the image of God [forwards]. (He did not claim that Packer fans are in the other line. It’s worth thinking about.)

He finds similar internal clues in the Noah flood story, like olive trees seemingly growing though they’ve been submerged for more than a year. Cain’s descendants, by the way, are pre- and post- flood and this goes against the grain of all but [only] Noah’s line surviving (Genesis 4:17-24).

Does God speak Hebrew? Did Adam speak in Hebrew? Is Hebrew the oldest language? Or, is this stuff re-writing in light of Hebrew beliefs and traditions?

Darwin, then, does not help us when it comes to the genre of Genesis but he may speak to the substance of what Genesis may or may not be about.

 

 

For Further Reference -

 

 

Experiencing a Creation Conference

Adam and Atrahasis (RJS)

 

 

What About Enuma Elish and
Other ANE Myths? (RJS)

 

 

Genesis One 11, by John Walton

 

Missions Projects: God's Vision for Haiti

 

http://www.godsvisionforhaiti.org/

 

 

Orphanage and Refuge Center in Les Cayes, Haiti

 

 

 

The heart of God's Vision For Haiti is the children of Haiti. GVFH's main goal is to build an orphanage / refuge center. In the last year, GVFH has made large strides in reaching this goal. With the help of our generous supporters, GVFH purchased a piece of land; the property was paid off in November, 2010. Now GVFH is focused on building a facility to accommodate up to 100 children. The refuge center will serve meals to children in the community who do not meet the criteria to reside at the orphanage, whose parents are unable to provide for their basic needs.

 

God's Vision For Haiti is in the process of networking, planning fundraising events to raise enough money to build and open the orphanage/refuge center.

 

This September, GVFH will begin the planning phase for this campus in collaboration with Engineering Ministries International (eMi). Professional design volunteers will accompany us to the acquired site in Les Cayes, Haiti to facilitate in site surveying, planning, and design. We will be able to address critical issues such as water, power supply, and waste water management. After many years of praying and seeking God's will, our home is finally beginning to take shape!

My neighbor and Founding Director, Juska Lazzarre

 

 

 How You Can Help

 

Would you like to get involved in God's Vision for Haiti? Here are some of the different ways you can help.

• Pray for God's Vision for Haiti
• Support the organization financially.
  You can donate here or you can mail your donation to:
  God's Vision for Haiti
  P.O. Box 8211
  Kentwood, MI 49518
• Volunteer your time or talent.
  You can volunteer during one of our fundraising events to serve as a promoter, greeter, server, cook, etc. You can also volunteer to perform at one of our events.
• Donate items/prizes including gift certificates to be included in a silent auction or raffle during our fundraising dinners.
• Partner with us or organize a fundraising event on behalf of the organization.

 

 

Donate Online

 

To submit a one-time donation through PayPal, click the Donate button below and enter the amount on the subsequent page. Then, proceed through the rest of the PayPal screens to complete the process. You will have the option to return to our website.

 

Please note that the transaction will be handled entirely by PayPal. However, you do not need to have a PayPal account in order to submit your donation through PayPal. 

 

 

Send a Check                                                      

 

If you prefer, you may mail a check made out to God's Vision for Haiti to the following address:

God's Vision for Haiti
P.O. Box 8211
Kentwood, MI
49518

 

 

Photo Album: 2010 Earthquake Relief Trip

 

 

The Wonders of God's Creation - Kuroshio Sea and Poem

Recommendation - Play both videos a little offset from one another in stereo
while reading "Abiding Presence" - re slater


Kuroshio Sea - the 2nd largest aquarium tank in the world

(song is Please Don't Go, by Barcelona)

    

Barcelona - "Please Don't Go"

SXSW 2011 Showcasing Artist

Song Lyrics

All those arrows you threw, you threw them away
You kept falling in love, then one day
When you fell, you fell towards me
When you crashed in the clouds, you found me

Oh, please dont go
I want you so
I cant let go
For I lose control

Get these left handed lovers out of your way
They look hopeful but you, you should not stay
If you want me to break down and give you the keys
I can do that but I cant let you leave

Oh, please dont go
I want you so
I cant let go
For I lose control

The Bible and Evolution, Inerrancy, and Other Matters

The Bible and Evolution


Part 1


by Thomas Jay Oord
Sept 13, 2012

My friends, Darrel Falk and Kathryn Applegate, are joining me to edit a book of essays on evolution. What makes this book especially interesting is that Evangelical leaders, theologians, and scientists write these essays, and they are largely in favor of the idea that God creates through evolution!

Naturally, I thought I should write an essay. As I thought about the many angles I could take, I decided I'd write a testimonial. And the best place to begin the story of my exploration of evolution is with the Bible.

That may seem strange. Many people wouldn’t start with the Bible when talking about a scientific theory. But I’m a theologian, and I take the Bible with utmost seriousness. Talking about the Bible is a natural place for me to begin, both because the Bible was principally important in my youth, and because it remains so for me today.

I don’t mean to snub science. Science is important too. I read a lot in the sciences, and I think the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is strong. I try to take this and other evidence with great seriousness.

But the real story – for me – starts with the Bible.

Centrality of Scripture

Fortunately, my parents were committed Christians. Our family was one of those “attend-church-three-times-a-week-and-more” families. My parents were significant leaders in our local congregation, and I began following their footsteps early in life.

I doubt I missed more than a handful of Sunday school classes before I was twenty years old. And I always attended Vacation Bible School – even winning Bible memorizing competitions on occasion. (John 11:35 was my friend!) I participated on youth Bible quizzing team for a while too.

While growing up, I don’t recall anyone telling me that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God. But my passion for Scripture and my Evangelical community inclined me toward that position. Scripture was central in my life.

Besides, I wanted a failsafe foundation for my beliefs. And how could I convince my Mormon friends to become Christians if the Bible was not true in every sense, including literally true about what it said about the natural world? Witnessing to God’s truth seemed to require that I believe the Bible was without error on all matters, including matters related to science.

An Inerrant Bible?

My view of the Bible began to change when I went to college. It wasn’t that a liberal Bible professor brainwashed me away from the positions of my youth. Instead, I started reading the Bible carefully and the work of biblical scholars. I began to think it important to love God with my mind in a more consistent way.

And then I took a class in koine Greek, the language of the New Testament. In this course, I discovered several things. First, we have differing English translations of the New Testament, because the biblical text allows for a number of valid translation options. (When I later took Hebrew class, I found the diversity of valid translations even greater!) Second, we do not have access to the original biblical manuscripts/autographs. Our Bibles come from later manuscripts, the earliest of which are not complete. And, third, the oldest texts we have differ in many ways – although most differences are minor.

I also discovered discrepancies in the Bible. For instance, in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus curses a fig tree and it withers immediately (21:18-20). But in Mark’s version of the same story, the fig tree does not wither immediately and the disciples find it withered the next morning (11:12-14; 20-21). Mark says that Jesus heals one demon-possessed man at Gerasenes (5:1-20), while Matthew says there were two demon-possessed men involved in that same miracle (8:28-34). Jesus tells the disciples to take a staff on their journey as recorded in Mark 6:8, but Matthew says Jesus told the disciples not to take a staff (10:9-10). Jesus says Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly. Then, making an analogy with his own death, he says the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Mt 12:40). But Jesus was not dead three days and three nights!

I mention only a few of the many internal discrepancies. Once I discovered a few, I noticed more. This, of course, made me question whether I should say the Bible is inerrant in all ways.

What’s the Bible For?

I’m persistent. I don’t usually settle for easy answers, ignore problems, or appeal to mystery at the drop of a hat. I want to give a plausible account of the hope within me.

My quest for better ways to think about the Bible prompted me to read theologians and Bible scholars from the past and present. What I found surprised me! I had assumed believing the Bible is inerrant in all ways was the traditional position of Christians throughout the ages. I assumed it was the position of my own Christian tradition. I was wrong.

Few if any great theologians argued the Bible was absolutely inerrant. Augustine did not affirm inerrancy in this way. Thomas Aquinas didn’t. Neither did Martin Luther or John Wesley – a least in a consistent way. And I discovered through reading and conversations that those considered the leading biblical scholars and theologians today also reject absolute biblical inerrancy.

I did find a few teachers who said the Bible was inerrant. But when I read their explanations of the Bible’s discrepancies and their views about the differences between the oldest manuscripts, I found they stretched the word “inerrant” beyond recognition. Their meaning of “inerrant” was nothing like the usual meaning. And it was certainly not what most Evangelicals meant when they called the Bible the inerrant Word of God.

Perhaps even more important was my discovery that great theologians and biblical scholars of yesteryear believed the Bible’s basic purpose was to reveal God’s desire for our salvation. Many giants of the Christian faith could agree with John Wesley who said, “The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points.”

The necessary points of Scripture refer to instruction for our salvation. They indicate that, as the Apostle Paul puts it, Scripture is inspired and “useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The purpose of the Bible is our salvation!

I also discovered Christian leaders over the centuries did not feel required to search the Bible for truths about science. In fact, they sometimes used allegorical interpretations that seem silly to me now. The vast majority of Evangelical scholars with whom I talked also didn’t think the Bible has to be inerrant about scientific matters.

After my studies, I came to believe that the Bible tells us how to find abundant life. But it does not provide the science for how life became abundant.

Can I Trust the Bible?

When I tell people I don’t require the Bible to tell me truth about science but I trust God to use the Bible to reveal what is necessary for salvation, I’m sometimes asked this question:

“If the Bible can’t be trusted on science and all other matters on which it speaks, how can it be trusted on matters of salvation?”

That’s a fair question. Before I answer it, however, we should look at what it seems to presuppose.

Those who ask this question seem to think the Bible is a container carrying a complete set of literally true statements. Those who take this position worry that, like a house of cards, any defect in that complete set means the whole structure will fall. One error, to them, places into jeopardy the truth of the whole book!

Others who ask this question seem to presuppose a view of inspiration that seems to make the writers of Scripture machines or robots. God manipulated these writers by controlling them and their worldviews entirely.

By contrast, I think there are great advantages to thinking God inspired but did not entirely control biblical writers. (i) This symbiotic view of authorship explains the presence of errors in the Bible. (ii) And it explains why the limited worldviews of biblical authors don’t fit perfectly with contemporary worldviews informed by science.

I think, however, that the Bible can be trusted about what it says about salvation even though its statements about the natural world – when interpreted literally – may be wrong. After all, biblical scholars say we best interpret Genesis 1 and other Bible creation passages as hymns and theological poetry, not scientific treatises.

My Answer

My primary answer to why I think we can trust the Bible to be used by God to reveal truths about salvation, therefore, pertains to salvation itself. I trust the Bible on matters of salvation, because God has transformed my life as I read and followed the Bible’s teaching. God continues to transform me – provide salvation – as I pray and read the biblical text.

In fact, the transformation God is doing in my life seems to have increased since I stopped thinking the Bible was inerrant in all ways! I don’t know if there’s a connection, but there may be.

In short, the “proof” of the Bible’s truth about salvation is in the “pudding” of transformed lives – mine and billions of others. The Bible doesn’t have to be accurate in terms of contemporary science or be absolutely inerrant for God to use it for our salvation.

This is only part of the story. In the next blog, I want to talk specifically about how the Bible is not only compatible with evolution. I think it can actually support key notions in a theory that says God uses evolution when creating.

* * * * * * * * * * * *


Evolution and the Bible

Part 2

by Thomas Jay Oord

Sept 17, 2012

The Bible is not only compatible with the idea God creates through evolution. I also think some themes in evolution actually reinforce and correspond with themes in Scripture.

In my previous blog post (the first in this two-part discussion), I reported on my biblical pilgrimage. I moved from thinking the Bible was absolutely inerrant to finding it had discrepancies. And yet the Bible remains principally authoritative for me, and I consider it trustworthy with regard to matters of salvation.

Evolution

What does this talk about the Bible have to do with exploring evolution?

At a minimum, my study of the Bible and great Christian thinkers reveals that the Bible and contemporary science are not essentially in conflict. The Bible’s purpose pertains to salvation. The purpose of science is greater understanding of the natural world.

Sure, sometimes a scientist will make statements that seem to allow no room for God. When a scientist does this, he or she moves beyond findings or theories about the natural world and speculates about things beyond the domain of science. I feel free to disagree with these kinds of statements, in part because they go beyond the proper explanatory functions of science.

As a theologian, I find it exciting that science and theology need not conflict. I’m free to think biblical authors operated from a worldview different from mine shaped by contemporary science. But because God uses the Bible in ways to teach me and others truths for our salvation, I’m not worried that ancient worldviews don’t match contemporary science.

Created Co-Creators

It’s one thing to say evolution doesn’t conflict with the Bible’s purpose. It’s another thing to say evolution actually reinforces central biblical truths.

When I say, “reinforce,” I’m not saying the Bible proves the theory of evolution is true. Nor am I saying the Bible proposes evolution or even evolutionary creation. Afterall, I don’t think biblical writers could have had evolution in mind when they were inspired by God to write the book the Church has canonized as Scripture.

But I do think evolution fits well with important features of the Christian faith. And I don’t think other theories fit as well.

For instance, Genesis tells us that “when God began creating the heavens and the earth,” “the earth was a formless void” and “darkness covered the face of the deep.” In creating, a “wind from God swept over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:1-2).

From relationship with creation, God calls forth other things. In this creating, God does not act alone. God says, for instance, “let the earth put forth vegetation” (11), “let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures” (20), and “let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind” (24).

In other words, the Christian creation story says creatures act as created co-creators! That story fits well with the idea God creates through an evolutionary process involving creaturely contributions. It doesn’t fit so well with creation views that say God unilaterally zaps creatures into existence from nothingness.

God is Love

I find the Bible bubbling over with examples of God working in, with, and alongside creatures. And that shouldn’t surprise us. Isn’t that the way love works? It makes sense to think a loving God would create in, with, and alongside that which God previously created.

It’s pretty obvious to most people that love doesn’t entirely control others. Love does not coerce. Instead, love calls, persuades, invites, or influences without overriding freedom.

Evolution helps us realize that giving of freedom and/or agency is a gift God gives all creation. Sure, the tiniest creatures don’t have freedom like we do. But they have some measure of agency. And it would make sense that a loving God would give freedom and/or agency to all God creates. We know that give-and-receive relations require at least some freedom and/or agency from those in relationship.

To say God gives freedom and/or agency to all creation and has always been doing so helps answer some of the biggest questions we have about evolution. For instance, evolution tells us that it took millions of years for creatures to evolve into the complex forms we now see. But if God gives freedom and/or agency to all creatures and they act as created co-creators, it would make sense that creating complex creatures takes time.

Or consider the problem of pain, suffering, and death. An evolutionary theory that says God lovingly gives freedom and/or agency helps explain why things sometimes go wrong. Creatures might use that freedom and/or agency badly. And that’s an important place to start when pondering the difficult issues of evil.

In short, the theory of evolution can help remind us of the central truth of the Christian faith: God is love. And it can help us see why Jesus’ great commandments – love God and love others as ourselves – fits in the fabric of creation.

Living the Cross-Shaped Life                               

Cruciform Existence

Let me add one more way in which I think a biblical theme fits well with evolutionary theory.

There is ample support in the New Testament that the death of one (Jesus Christ) brought life to others. “Christ died, and now we can live,” Christians often testify. They make this claim not only based on their experience but also upon the biblical witness. In fact, those who die to their sinful habits and come alive in Christ are said to live a cruciform existence. They imitate the crucified One.

In an important sense, they theory of evolution also requires death in order for life to emerge anew. Darwin saw very clearly that without death the planet would quickly become overgrown and overpopulated. In some cases, death is required for more robust and more diverse life to emerge. In other words, evolution also has a cruciform element in it.

I want to be clear that I’m not saying all death is good. Death is sometimes evil but other times not. But Christians have affirmed since the beginning that at least sometimes death is necessary for the bringing forth of life.

Jesus Christ, of course, witnesses to this cruciform existence most poignantly. And when we choose death for the sake of something better, our death is similar to Jesus’ death and the death that occurs in evolutionary processes. Death can bring life!

God is Doing a New Thing

I could say much more about evolution and the Bible. But I don’t have time and space. So let me conclude.

Not only do I think the theory of evolution best accounts for the scientific evidence. And not only do I think the Bible is compatible with evolution because the Bible’s purpose is to reveal God’s salvation. I also think the theory of evolution is a gift. It’s a gift to Christians like me who take the Bible with utmost seriousness. It reinforces central themes of the Christian faith.

The writer of Isaiah 43 records God saying, “I will do a new thing.” God then immediately asks, “Do you not perceive it?” (19) An evolutionary picture of the world suggests God is in the business of doing new things. And the Bible says creation has been invited to participate.

Perhaps Evangelicals are ready today to perceive that God’s way of doing new things is written into God’s creating through evolution. And in this, the book of Scripture and the book of nature agree.