Post 9/11, American-Born Pakistani devotes himself to improving U.S.-Muslim world relations

http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/09/west_michigan_native_devotes_h.html

Published: Saturday, September 10, 2011, 6:00 AM

By Charley Honey | The Grand Rapids PressThe Grand Rapids Press

On Sept. 11, 2001, Jay Munir and I saw different skies, but we felt the same anger. His sky was filled with black smoke billowing from the Pentagon, as he walked home after being evacuated from his Washington, D.C., law office.

Mine was spotless blue, a beautiful Grand Rapids day in all respects save one — the world had changed in a horrible way.

Jay Munir

A decade after 9/11, I vividly remember my numb shock, racing fear and growing rage — how dare they do this to us? — as I ran about trying to register other people’s feelings for The Grand Rapids Press. I didn’t know what to do other than work my tail off and call my daughter at college to tell her I loved her.

As an American-born Muslim, Munir’s emotions were both more complex and focused.

Walking home from his office near the White House, Munir saw the hellish evidence of American Airlines Flight 77’s crash into the Pentagon. As his steps quickened, so did his anger at those responsible.

“We could see black smoke rising over the city,” Munir told me from his office in Karachi, Pakistan. “That was the moment I knew I wanted to do something to serve.”

Beyond the instinctive desire many Americans felt to do something, anything, Munir felt a special responsibility. Raised in Cascade Township, educated at Forest Hills, Yale and Harvard, fluent in French, Arabic and Urdu, Munir had both the skills and desire to help improve U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

Three years later, he joined the U.S. State Department. He’s worked in Saudi Arabia, Paris, Iraq, Jordan, Tunisia, Syria and recently arrived in Pakistan, his parents’ native land. He’s chief of the political and economic section at the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, keeping in touch with key constituencies and explaining U.S. policy.

“Being an American has always been the most important thing to me,” said Munir, 35. “I always felt a desire to give back for the opportunities America has given me.”

In that, again, Jay and I are much the same.

In fact, we have found much in common over the years, chatting over coffee on his breaks from abroad. In our concern for promoting peace, tolerance and understanding, we share values that cut across our different faiths. We are Americans first and foremost.

Plenty of common values

Courtesy Photo Jay Munir, center, with his parents,
Ghazala and Mazhar Munir.

I’ve been grateful to get to know Jay, as I have been to know his mother, Ghazala, for many years. His father, Mazhar, is a psychiatrist, and sister Reema a radiologist. Theirs is a kind, loving family much like my own. We share aspirations for a good life and a peaceful world. Their Islamic faith and our Christian tradition pose no obstacles to these shared values; in fact, it enhances them.

“We gather here as one American family,” Ghazala said on the night of the 9/11 attacks, at an interfaith prayer service at St. Andrew’s Cathedral, summing up a grief that knew no creed.

The antidote to fear

Knowing Jay, Ghazala and other area Muslims has helped keep me grounded over the past 10 years. While a substantial minority of Americans worry about Muslims’ loyalties and intentions, I have had the privilege of knowing people just as concerned about the safety and welfare of their country and families as I am.

Courtesy PhotoJay Munir with Iraqi refugee children in Syria.Just knowing people personally, it seems, does a lot to counter the fear and insecurity that have pushed people apart post-9/11. In our age of airport pat-downs, political polarization and mosque protests, we need to know our neighbors before we can love them.

Researchers say knowing just one person of a different faith changes people’s attitudes towards the whole religion. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, scholars David Campbell and Robert Putnam argue friendship and marriage allayed historical suspicions by Protestants against Catholics and Jews.

The same may happen with Islam, they suggested; however, they reported only 7 percent of Americans are friends with a Muslim.

“Feeling warmly toward a given religion follows from having a close relationship with someone of that religion,” the authors wrote.

Local interfaith initiative

Happily, West Michigan soon will have an opportunity to get to know its neighbors of other faiths.

A yearlong initiative for promoting interfaith understanding will be announced Sunday. Key leaders are launching the effort as a positive community response to the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Stay tuned for opportunities to get involved.

It’s my hope this will lead to a long-term change for the better in the way people around here relate to each other — and work together — across faith and cultural lines.

Meanwhile, Jay Munir is working hard to improve relations with Pakistan and promote America’s image worldwide.

He emphasizes the opportunities America has provided Muslims, the help it’s provided to Muslim-majority countries and the lives Americans have sacrificed fighting terrorism.

“We have a lot to be proud of. Our challenge is to be able to communicate that to people in this part of the world.”

Terror is a threat to all

He also wants to communicate to Americans that terrorism threatens us all, including Muslims, and that American Muslims should “speak up loudly and often against terrorism and extremism.” Al-Qaida gunmen killed five of his consulate colleagues in Saudi Arabia, and a Syrian friend of his was killed in this spring’s pro-democracy protests.

His parents are proud of his work despite the risks. His patriotism has been evident since he eagerly studied U.S. history as a boy, Ghazala says: “We obviously worry, but then we know that he was destined for this important work.”

When he left his post in Syria, a friend’s mother told Jay, “I’ve always loved America, but after meeting you, I love it more.”

The world seems darker and more dangerous since 9/11. It’s hard to know what to do with our fears and anxieties. Perhaps just getting to know someone can help ease them — and show our love for America.


Email Charles Honey: honeycharlesm@gmail.com

KKSM Konnect Skateboard Ministry

http://www.kksm.org/konnect/

Reliance & Siren Testimonies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UOGutE5oTw&feature=player_embedded#!

Classic Evangelical Epistemology, Part 1

This will be a fairly long article to read and absorb as I discovered myself when reviewing its contents. However, it is pertinent to the newer efforts of deconstructionism now prevalent in epistemological research of language and communication, in meta-narrative discussions of hermeneutic, and in the basic postmodernistic discussions relating to emergent Christian issues. I recently saw it come up (unstated of course) in Catherine Keller's Process Theology discussion and Roger Olson's Theism v. Open Theism discussions, not to mention the themes found in Analytic Theology, and Hermeneutics.

And so, for all these reasons and more, we must plow through Paul Hiebert's earlier, modernistic, epistemological discussion of God, and of personal salvation, from both a "bounded set" and a "centered set" framework while keeping in mind that his analysis comes from a classic Christian understanding of religious epistemology. It would be somewhat akin to classical physical science as versus quantum physical science, in that the set-theory shown here is a production of late-modernistic thought, and not the postmodernistic thought currently underway in the researches of deconstructivism.

After reading Hiebert's very careful analysis of the process of salvation for a non-Christian far removed from modern society I have provided an additional set of remarks that may (or may not) be helpful. Please read those remarks only after reading Hiebert's article as they will perhaps make more sense in light of this effort. Thank you.

RE Slater
September 9, 2011

**********

Article on “centered” versus “bounded” sets

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/article-on-centered-versus-bounded-sets/

by Roger Olson

posted on September 8, 2011

Someone asked me for my source regarding the difference between “centered sets” and “bounded sets.” (This is with reference to my [recent] argument that evangelicalism is a centered set and not a bounded set; http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/09/review-four-views-on-spectrum-of.html ).

I first encountered this distinction in the following article by missiologist Paul Hiebert: “Coversion, Culture and Cognitive Categories” in Gospel in Context 1:4 (October, 1978), 24-29. I highly recommend it if you can locate it. I believe it was republished as a chapter in a later book by Hiebert, but I don’t know the title (found below in the comments section by readers). The article’s subtitle is “How much must Papayya ‘know’ about the gospel to be converted?” (“Papayya” is a hypothetical native of a newly reached people group.

Comments & Observations

Commentor 1 - Paul H. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), ISBN # 978-0-8010-4394-9. The whole book is very good and the chapter referred to is called “The Catogory Christian in the Mission Task” but also of interest I hope is the opening chapter “Epistemological Foundations for Science and Theology”.

Commentor 2 - Hiebert’s discussion of a centered set approach is expanded and set in a broader context in his posthumously published, Transforming Worldviews.

*********

Conversion, Culture and Cognitive Categories

 By Hiebert, Paul G. 1978. ‘Conversion, Culture and Cognitive Categories’.

Gospel in Context 1(4):24-29.

How much must Papayya ‘know’ about the Gospel to be converted?

by Paul G. Hiebert

**********

Go here to read ! 

http://danutm.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/hiebert-paul-g-conversion-culture-and-cognitive-categories.pdf

Go here to read !

**********

Additional Comments

by RE Slater

on September 9, 2011

I had lost my earlier commentary when first submitting it and will limit this discussion to these several ideas more poorly written than my former words.... First, after reading Hiebert's discussion - which I faintly remember from early seminary work in missiology - I would be interested in knowing more about category #3 regarding the fuzzy subsets to either position. (If anyone has a link please pass this along and I will list it here. Thanks.)

Secondly, this Westernized version of epistemology (and more specific, of a Christian missiological understanding of itself) seems less than satisfying and makes me more inclined to seek a broader, non-religious philosophical epistemology to work forwards from than starting from Hiebert's religious analysis (though seemingly true) and working backwards. For myself, I prefer to look at the larger picture first before seeking an enhanced subset of the larger picture, and/or before seeking to Christianize a topic if relevant and true. Hiebert most probably has already done this for us, but being a skeptic at heart, I would like to first know what he knows about a subject before jumping to these epistemological conclusions and creating a broad working theory for the evangelic Christian faith.

If creating a non-Christian epistemology than it should also include Eastern cultural constructs as well as aboriginal native/tribal constructs; pagan views as well as disparate religious views; historical frameworks in combination with more recent eras; sociological rich settings and sociologically poor settings; and so forth. For the human language of communication changes from time and place, era and geography, people group and organization. Making latent epistemological theory both fluid and dynamic, and showing to us that by its very dynamism it can affect our hermeneutical reading of the Bible composed of so many peoples, and places, times and locations. Too, because I am not an epistemologist by training, it would be interesting to know if this subject matter rests on several firm and inflexible/pervasive theories that can then be re-contextualized for each given human era and circumstance. Which is more probably where the areas of existentialism and phenomenology would then enter in, though I would like to keep them out as much as possible (though I doubt this would be realistic).

Moreover, it seems that the current postmodernisticcommunicational underpinnings should help in this effort. Much like the postmodern day effort of re-making the Tower of Babel in its antecedal communications previous to its construction organized under one language group before God smote its laborers with many different languages. More probably because, like Hiebert who worked within foreign cultures, we in our technological cultures, are discovering the need for establishing a common ground of relating to one another within our ever expanding social networks (whether Christian or non-Christian), as well as globally, with other cultures.

Overall, I think Hiebert expresses the current need for postmodernism's deconstructive theology occurring in (1) our own personal existential narratives, and (2) the meta-narratives that we find ourselves in, as well as (3) those narratives and meta-narratives found within the biblically authoritative stories of Jesus in the Gospels, of Paul, of Old and New Testament stories and figures alike. And yet, by creating an epistemological redaction (or reconstruction) of our lives - and those of scripture - we must realize that this can be fraught with unsolvable, perhaps long-term, epistemological tension. But still, as man evolves in his communications with one another, it would seem that at some very fundamental levels of local, regional and global interactions, that his task of re-vitalizing language into a wholistic set of uni-languages must necessarily occur. More probably because this same activity will actually occur through contemporary shared cultural experiences as technology binds global peoples everywhere towards more enlightened understandings of one another through world events, tragedies, catastrophes, human-interest stories, and the like.

Lastly, I have recently been reading through Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, and now better understand his frustration in relating spiritual concepts to a global audience; and specifically, his frustration over his own background's understanding of those spiritual concepts when fraught by limited, conservative, Christian epistemologies. And I would applaud any constructive effort in re-discovering the dynamism that I know is present in the words of God to us through his Word, his Spirit, and his people. Not simply in its authority, but in its ground of guidance for our daily lives, if it is possible to delimit ourselves from our past parochial understandings of childhood, as young students and parents, and even as older Christians. All the while exploring the import of God's revelation to our lives and to the world around us as we minister God's grace and grow old in our span of years.

At an Intersection of Change

Emergent Christians are learning to choose for God's Grace

when at the crossroads of alternative choices

 

Have Muslim-Christian Relations Improved Since 9/11?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/september/muslim-christian-relations.html

Observers weigh in on how interactions between

the two religions have changed in recent years

Christianity Today

by Rick Love, Carl Moeller, and Jason Micheli

posted September 6, 2011

Yes

Rick Love is president of Peace Catalyst International and consultant for Christian-Muslim relations with the Vineyard USA.

Terrorist attacks. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Guantanamo Bay. Abu Ghraib. Violent Muslim responses to Terry Jones's Qur'an burning. Islamophobic responses to building mosques in the United States.

Have Muslim-Christian relations improved since 9/11? Most people would say, "No!" I disagree. Muslim-Christian relations have improved.

Yes, there is progress, but many can't see it because they confuse Christianity with the West. Relationships between Muslims and the West haven't improved since 9/11. But that isn't the question.

Yes, there is progress, but many can't see it because of the media. Journalists select events, promote images, and emphasize perspectives that shape perception. Sometimes they get it right. Often they don't. And the undiscerning miss what God is doing.

Yes, there is progress, but there is also bad news. There have been violent attacks on minority Christians in Muslim countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Nigeria. Churches have been destroyed and Christians killed. Muslims in America have freedom of religion, but they face increasing hostility from fearful populations.

But overall, things are improving.

At the National Prayer Breakfast in 2005, King Abdullah II of Jordan forcefully spoke out against terrorism. The media complain that Muslims don't speak out against terrorism. Abdullah did, loud and clear. Other Muslim countries are building bridges. Qatar hosts the annual Doha Interfaith Conference. King Abdullah al-Saud of Saudi Arabia promotes interfaith dialogue and religious tolerance, which was unheard of prior to 9/11. This same dynamic is happening in the U.S. among Muslim organizations and local mosques.

The World Evangelical Alliance, representing over 600 million evangelicals, recently birthed a peace and reconciliation initiative with a strong emphasis on Christian-Muslim relations.

During a 2009 conference in Kenya, 50 evangelical leaders from around the world wrestled with alienation between Muslims and Christians. The Grace and Truth Project started. Nine biblical guidelines for Christlike relations emerged, changing the way Christians relate to Muslims.

The International Guild of Visual Peacemakers builds bridges of peace through breathtaking photography and stirring video clips. The Institute for Global Engagement focuses on building mutual respect, reconciliation, and religious freedom. They host numerous conferences aimed at enhancing Christian-Muslim relations. Peace Catalyst International is another influential initiative making a difference by getting mosques and churches together around meals and shared concerns.

The Yale Reconciliation Program may be one of the most promising academic and global initiatives. The program hosted the Common Word dialogue between 75 prominent international Muslim leaders and 75 prominent international Christian leaders in 2008. In June 2011, the program convened a gathering of 30 influential leaders for "Building Hope: Muslims, Christians and Jews Seeking the Common Good." The good will fostered at the Common Word is trickling down to thousands of churches and mosques around the world.

In spite of many chronic problems, Christians and Muslims have been making concerted efforts to get along since September 11.

No

Carl Moeller is president of Open Doors USA, a group that works with persecuted Christians worldwide.

Using the global persecution of Christians as a measure of well-being in the post-9/11 world, Muslim-Christian relations have markedly worsened.

For example, 8 of the top 10 countries on the 2011 Open Doors World Watch List of the worst persecutors of Christians have Islamic governments. Ten years ago, Pakistani Christians could hold meetings and rallies openly in cities without much risk. Not anymore. While we see efforts in the United States to overcome fear of Muslims, the stark reality is that many Americans are more afraid of them than they were a decade ago. This produces distrust and deteriorates relationships.

What I find most unsettling is the general current response of some American Christians to Muslims. Our hearts should break that 1.5 billion Muslims are entrapped in a false ideology. They need Jesus. But many U.S. evangelicals who were sympathetic to mission outreaches to Muslims 10 years ago are today reacting with fear and anger. Many have gone down a path of returning hatred for hatred.

If we Christians choose to hate, we are not much better than the extremists. Jesus tells us that the world will hate us. We shouldn't expect anything different. But Jesus came to love the world, including Muslims, some of whom hate us. If we continue in hatred, we sink to the level of those who are committed to our destruction. More tragic, we squander our ability to provide hope to the world. Muslims are in spiritual prison camps. We must give them an opportunity to hear the Good News and offer a way out to those imprisoned by deceptive beliefs.

Jesus' teaching is clear. We must love our enemies. We are able to stand accepted in God's presence not because we are lovable, but because when we were still enemies of Christ, he loved us and died for us. If we fight hatred with hatred, we are no better than the world.

We can shun this path by recognizing that Muslims themselves are not our enemies. Islam is the spiritual enemy we face, but Muslims themselves are loved by Jesus as much as we are.

In my book The Privilege of Persecution, I note how persecuted Christians are often more willing to love and forgive than Western Christians watching from the sidelines. As those who follow the example of our Lord Jesus, it is our calling to bless those who persecute us.

Yes—In Our Church

Jason Micheli is a pastor at Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Alexandria, Virginia.

September 11, 2001, is stamped on our generation's collective memory in the same way President Kennedy's assassination was for my parents' generation. Everyone remembers where they were when they heard the news.

I was in the dining hall of my seminary, watching with others on a muted television screen. With no volume, none of us were quite sure if what we were seeing was real.

Now 10 years removed, in many ways it seems like we never made it to September 12. The vagaries of two long wars, the number of military casualties and civilian dead, the long deployments suffered by military families, the suspicion provoked in airport security lines, and partisan rancor have all worked to do their best to keep our calendars locked on September 11, 2001.

This is the landscape the church has occupied for the past decade. At times the church has succeeded only in mirroring the fear and fractures of the culture; at other times, it has proved to be a faithful irritant to the dominant mood.

Over this past year, our congregation has welcomed the members of a neighborhood mosque to observe their Friday Jummah prayers in our building while their own building has undergone renovations. What began as the sharing of space has led to Muslim-Christian small groups, faith-sharing forums, much conversation, and not a little controversy.

Our congregation welcomed our needy neighbors without a second thought. Our hospitality was not remarkable in our congregation or community until the media made it so.

Then, my sermon explaining our hospitality was posted on Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog, where it was soon picked up (and misquoted) by several other outlets. The media noise built to the point where our hospitality was featured on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. We received hate mail and death threats from Christians around the country.

The struggle to adapt was painful but was accompanied by new life. There is the U.S. soldier who had lost both his legs in Iraq but who, in a roomful of Christians and Muslims at our church, testified that the miracle he's experienced isn't that he survived but that he did so "with no hate in his heart for his enemy." There is the 20-something Muslim woman who told Christian women that, until eating desserts and making chit-chat with them, she'd been afraid her whole life of Christians. There is the funeral I did this winter for a church family. The caretaker who had nursed the deceased in the long months before she died is a Muslim woman. The reading they chose for the funeral? The Book of Ruth, the story of a presumed enemy nursing one of God's chosen and, through that friendship, finding her way into the story of salvation.

These individual encounters might not seem like much. But this kind of reconciliation has eternal value and God's blessing.

Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today

Related Elsewhere:

Other Christianity Today articles on 9/11 include:  

• Wake-up Call | If September 11 was a divine warning, it's God's people who are being warned. (November 12, 2001)  

• Where Was God on 9/11? | Reflections from Ground Zero and beyond. (October 1, 2001)

CT has additional articles on Muslim-Christian relations, Islam, and other religions include:

Previous "Village Green" sections have discussed military drones, terminal illness, marijuana morality, credit card debt, tithing during unemployment, illegal immigrants, giving to street people, the best Christmas stories, laws that ban Islamic veils, the Tea Party, Afghanistan, Bible smuggling, creation care, intelligent design, preaching, immigration, Lent, premarital abstinence, aid to foreign nations, technology, and abortion.

Hillsong - Mighty to Save

Hillsong - Mighty to Save

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ

Hillsong - Mighty to Save - With Subtitles/Lyrics
Mighty to Save DVD

Everyone needs compassion,
Love thats never failing
Let mercy fall on me

Well everyone needs forgiveness,
Kindness of a savior
The Hope of the nation

(Chorus)
Saviour, He can move the mountains,
My God is mighty to save,
He is mighty to save
Forever, author of salvation,
He rose and conquered the grave
Jesus conquered the grave

So take me as you find me
All my fears and failures
Fill my life again

I give my life to follow
Everything that i believe in
Now i surrender (and i surrender)

(Chorusx2)

Shine your light and let the whole world see
We're singing, for the glory of the risen king, Jesus
Shine your light and let the whole world see
We're singing for the glory of the risen king, Jesus

(Chorusx2)

Shine your light and let the whole world see
We're singing, for the glory of the risen king, Jesus
Shine your light and let the whole world see
We're singing for the glory of the risen king, Jesus

"Love Wins" Six Months Later

http://masonslater.com/2011/09/05/love-wins-six-months-later/

by Mason Slater

on September 5, 2011

It’s been over six months since a video trailer for Love Wins sparked countless blog posts, late night debates, and one (in)famous Tweet.

Now, with a little distance between us and the initial fireworks, I thought it might be an appropriate time to offer a few reflections on Love Wins and the reaction to it.

1. The Reaction On Both “Sides” Was Too Often Driven By Emotion And Sensationalism

Because this discussion evolved mostly online, and because everyone involved saw so much at stake in this discussion, tensions were high, grace was a rarity, and rushing to judgment was the norm.

Case in point, thousands of people speaking out against a book they hadn’t read. This of course resulted in people who appreciate Rob feeling like he’d been treated unjustly, and instinctually coming to his defense – often before they had read the book either.

Also, the way the media discussed the book was entirely unhelpful, leading to false impressions of what Rob was saying and stoking passions in a debate that was difficult enough to begin with.

Soon the book became a boundary marker: those who were sympathetic to Love Wins were often deemed liberal at best and universalist heretics at worst (and at times driven from their church), while those who took issue with the book were accused of being unloving or even wanting people to go to hell.

None of this did justice to those involved.

2. There Was Much Worth Saying In Love Wins, Though Little Of That Was New

Ironically, very few of the ideas in Love Wins were new, despite the controversy they caused. Rob says as much early in the book.

In fact most of the book was solidly Evangelical and restated points about the doctrines of heaven and hell that were already being made by authors like Scot McKnight, Mike Wittmer, C.S. Lewis, and N.T. Wright.

Books such as Surprised by Hope or Heaven Is a Place on Earth had already started to refocus Christians on a biblical hope which looks very little like Christian pop-theology or Dante’s fiction. A focus on new creation, resurrection, heaven coming to earth, and how our eschatology influences our ethics – none of that was new to Love Wins, but all of it needed to be said.

3. Some Of The Questions Rob Raised Were Needed, Because The Traditional Answer Is Lacking

After the book was released Rob was often criticized for his questions. At times just because he raises so many of them, but often because he questions the way we hold doctrines that are considered central to the faith.

But it’s naïve to think these questions originated with Love Wins. People have been asking many of the same questions around kitchen tables and over cups of coffee for a while now.

Rob was simply articulating what many of us were already saying.

And there is a reason these questions are being asked with increasing volume – the traditional answers are often intellectually and theologically unsatisfying. The ways we talk about the nature of God, about heaven and hell, about the fate of the unsaved, these are words which matter. And much of the time how we speak of these things seems radically out of place with the rest of the biblical story.

Whether we agree with Rob’s answers, there are many areas in which I think he was right to raise questions and push for us to do better.

4. On A Few Issues Rob Went In An Unhelpful And Unbiblical Direction, Which Made The Rest Easy For People To Dismiss

Many of the books written against Love Wins focus on a handful of problematic sections, and then on the basis of faults found there quickly dismiss the rest of the book.

The thing is, some of the critiques are spot on. There are ideas in Love Wins which are impossible to support from the text, and others that rely on reading the text in ways which are questionable at best.

Ideas like infinite chances to repent after death, for example.

I have no interest in pretending there were not problematic areas to Love Wins, there most definitely were and we should own up to that. But the way some bits of shoddy exegesis and speculation became an excuse to dismiss the rest of the book, and even to ignore the questions Rob raises, seemed to be missing the larger point.

__________________________

So, what do I think of Love Wins after six months? It was a provocative – albeit flawed – book, which raised questions we need to be able to openly discuss, and was often restating solid evangelical thinking with a bit of Rob Bell flare.

In the pages of Love Wins Rob states that he doesn’t intend the book as a final word, but as the start of a conversation. Personally I think it’s a conversation worth having, and I hope Rob continues to be a part of it.

Ask an Evolutionary Creationist

Ask an Evolutionary Creationist... (Dennis Responds)

http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response

by Rachel Held Evans

September 6, 2011

Today I’m thrilled to share biologist Dennis Venema’s responses to your questions for “Ask an Evolutionary Creationist.”

Dennis has a PhD in genetics/developmental biology from the University of British Columbia. He teaches at Trinity Western University, and his research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling. Dennis is part of the BioLogos Foundation, an organization committed to promoting a perspective on the origins of life that is both theologically and scientifically sound. He blogs at Biologos.org.

I’ve always found Dennis’ perspective to be challenging, accessible, and full of grace. I hope you learn as much from him as I have!

1. From Scot: Could you explain the difference between creationism, intelligent design, and "evolutionary creationism"?

“Creationism” is one of those words that almost always needs clarification. For many, “creationism” is synonymous with Young-Earth Creationism, the view that the Genesis narratives are to be taken literally. This view holds that the entire cosmos is around 6,000 years old, that the fossil record was laid down almost in its entirety during a literal, global worldwide flood, that God created humans directly out of dust, and that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the entire human race. The organization Answers in Genesis is probably the best-known proponent of this view.


Old-Earth Creationism typically holds to a local flood, and accepts Big Bang cosmology. Despite agreeing with mainstream science on these issues, they deny evolution: they believe that the vast majority of species (and especially humans) were independently created by God during earth’s long history. Old-earthers also hold to a literal Adam and Eve as the progenitors of our entire species. Reasons to Believe is the best-known organization that promotes this view. You can read one of my (somewhat technical) critiques of their anti-evolutionary genetics arguments here.


Intelligent Design (ID) is a view that many feel is a form of creationism, though the ID Movement itself often rejects the label, claiming that it is strictly an alternative scientific view. The ID Movement is a “Big Tent” approach for all and sundry who reject at least some part of evolutionary biology. As such, there are Young-Earth Creationists, Old-Earth Creationists, and others within the movement. The main ID view is that some features of life are too complex to be the result of evolution, thus indicating that they were “designed” – a word that functions as the equivalent of “created” within this group. The Discovery Institute is the best-known organization for promoting ID. I’ve spent a lot of time critiquing the ID movement, and you can find much of that material on the BioLogos web site (do an author search there using my name).


Despite their (large) differences, all of the above positions deny some aspect of modern science. The only Christian perspective on origins that fully accepts mainstream science is the Evolutionary Creation / Theistic Evolution view. This view holds that science is not an enemy to be fought, but rather a means of understanding some of the mechanisms God has used to bring about biodiversity on earth. This view accepts that humans share ancestry with all other forms of life, and that our species arose as a population, not through a single primal pair. There are different views within the EC community on whether there was a historical couple named Adam and Eve – some hold that there was, and that they were selected by God from a larger population as representatives. Other folks in the EC community feel that Adam and Eve are typological figures, such as a representation of the failure of Israel to keep the covenant. The science (human population genetics) is clear that our species arose as a population, and that is what I have focused on (since that is my area of expertise). I try to leave the theology to others, but often folks want to talk theology on these points, not science.

2. From Paige: What has been the most compelling evidence for you personally that has solidified your position as an evolutionary creationist? 

Well, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not just that a piece here and there fits evolution: it’s the fact that virtually none of the evidence we have suggests anything else. What you see presented as “problems for evolution” by Christian anti-evolutionary groups are typically issues that are taken out of context or (intentionally or not) misrepresented to their non-specialist audiences. For me personally (as a geneticist) comparative genomics (comparing DNA sequences between different species) has really sealed the deal on evolution. Even if Darwin had never lived and no one else had come up with the idea of common ancestry, modern genomics would have forced us to that conclusion even if there was no other evidence available (which of course manifestly isn’t the case).

For example, we see the genes for air-based olfaction (smelling) in whales that no longer even have olfactory organs. Humans have the remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk production in our DNA in exactly the place that evolution would predict. Our genome is nearly identical to the chimpanzee genome, a little less identical to the gorilla genome, a little less identical to the orangutan genome, and so on – and this correspondence is present in ways that are not needed for function (such as the location of shared genetic defects, the order of genes on chromosomes, and on and on). If you’re interested in this research, you might find this (again, somewhat technical) lecture I gave a few years ago helpful. You can also see a less technical, but longer version here where I do my best to explain these lines of evidence to members of my church. For those wanting even more info, a few years ago I recorded a series of lectures given to my non-majors, intro biology class that explored evolution and Christian responses to it in depth.

3. From Rob: I have trouble with randomness in natural selection. Why is it essential in scientific terms that evolutionary development is random? How does that fit with the notion of a God who is involved in the world? …Random evolution would not be theism (or it wouldn't Biblical Christianity). It would be deism; the Great Clockmaker who set everything in motion and then kept hands off. Why is randomness essential scientifically, and how does a Christian accept it theologically?

I think you mean randomness in mutation: natural selection is anything but random (it’s a process whereby certain variants in a population reproduce more successfully than others). Evolution has a random component (mutations arise that may be detrimental, neutral or beneficial) and an emphatically non-random component (the different variants within a population do not all reproduce at the same frequency, meaning that the next generation will not be exactly like the previous one). So, as a whole, evolution is not random since it has a strongly non-random component. Evolution is actually remarkably good at producing similar results over and over again: consider how similar ichthyosaurs (descended from terrestrial reptiles) and dolphins (descended from terrestrial mammals) are. That’s the non-randomness of evolution at work. Some evolutionary creationists have argued that this non-randomness of evolution is a way that God uses evolution to shape His creation (the best work on this topic is Life’s Solution by noted Cambrian paleontologist Simon Conway Morris).

4. From HMV: I agree with you that the evidence seems to point to evolution being true. I've read Biologos and the old Evolution and Evangelicals blog. I've read books where people try to rework theology in light of this scientific knowledge. And yet, I'm left feeling confused and unsatisfied about doctrines like sin, the Fall, salvation, etc. What about you--have you found a satisfying way to maintain your evangelical theology in light of evolution?

This is a tricky question, because it hinges on the inherently subjective term “satisfying.” What I might find satisfying you might not – and in order to answer the question I have to guess at what you mean by it.

Personally, the concept of Divine accommodation has been helpful to me. This is a theology that has a long heritage in Protestant circles (e.g. Calvin). In a nutshell, it’s the idea that God, in his grace, brings himself down to the level of the audience he is communicating with. For Genesis, that audience is an ancient near-eastern culture, not our modern scientific one. For Genesis, my view is that God wants to communicate that he is the Creator of all that there is, that he has given humanity a special image-bearing role within it, but our sinfulness has broken that relationship, et cetera – but that he doesn’t see a need to give them a science lesson first.

I would recommend Denis Lamoureux’s book I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution and, though not directly related to science, Peter Enns’ book Incarnation and Inspiration may also be helpful to you (it certainly was to me).

5. From Chris: From the perspective of an evolutionary creationist, what meaning and value do you extract from the creation accounts in Genesis and why would they be important for the Christian faith if they can't be taken literally?

See the answer above – I see the Genesis narratives as God graciously reaching down to an ancient culture in order to communicate to them that he is their creator, that they are alienated from him, and that he desires that they be restored to fellowship through his offer of covenant with him (ultimately pointing to the need for God to step into history himself as the One who can keep the covenant on our behalf).

6. From Paige: I'll never forget sitting in one of Dr. Charlie Liebert’s classes several years ago and hearing him ask the question: "What came first, death or sin?" If we believe that there was no death before sin, it causes a wrinkle in our ability to hold to the theory of evolution. As a scientist, this question caused him to reexamine the evidence. How have you personally dealt with this "wrinkle?"

Yes, if you believe that no death of any kind (plant, animal, bacterial) occurred before human sinfulness, then this precludes an evolutionary view, since the fossil record is (obviously) a record of things, well, dying. If you hold that no human death came before sinfulness, then it depends on what you call human (there is a gradation of forms leading up to the modern human skeleton in the fossil record, as well as the overwhelming genetic evidence that we arose through an evolutionary process) and what you consider sin (i.e. when did we become accountable to God for our actions?). There is also the long-standing observation that God decrees that Adam and Eve will surely die the day they eat of the fruit – and then they live for several hundred years after the fact. I’d also recommend reading through Romans 5:12 – 8:17 (which, as you know, is all about Adam, sin and Christ as the second Adam) and making a mental checklist of how Paul uses the term death in this passage. References to physical human death are in the minority – suggesting that Paul’s understanding of what is going on in Genesis has a lot more nuance than a simple literal reading would imply [(e.g., spiritual death)].

7. From Jane (from her husband, an atheist): All of the questions posted so far approach the topic from the viewpoint of assuming belief in a god. As an atheist, I don’t share that assumption. (For those who might not appreciate it, evolution offers a mechanism for understanding the existence of living organisms that doesn’t require the existence of a god.) If you transitioned from an anti-evolutionary/pro-intelligent design view to an evolutionary creationist view a few years ago,” why didn’t you keep going and just embrace evolution and drop the theistic aspect?

Your question implies that there is a natural trajectory from accepting evolution to rejecting God. As a theist, specifically an evangelical Christian, I don’t agree with this point, though I understand where you are coming from. Let me explain.

Your assumption, that “evolution offers a mechanism for understanding the existence of living organisms that doesn’t require the existence of a god” holds weight only if one has the view that “natural explanations” and “theistic explanations” are a zero-sum game. This is a God-of-the-gaps approach, where God has less and less to do as we understand more and more how nature works (and a view I reject - [deism v. theism]). Logically, if I held this view I would view science as an inherently evil activity, since any natural explanation diminishes the activity of God from this viewpoint. Your view is also one that science cannot establish as correct, since science cannot speak to the absence of divine action in an observed phenomenon.

If, on the other hand, one believes that “natural explanations” reveal the means by which God ordains and sustains his creation, then “natural explanations” are not a threat to theism at all, but rather a window into the ways God acts in the world. This is the view I hold, and it too is a view that science cannot establish. Both theistic evolution and atheistic evolution are philosophical / theological interpretations of what science can establish: evolution.

As for “drop(ping) the theistic aspect” – this would imply that my faith was based on a particular understanding of creation such that I would question my faith when I questioned the mechanism of creation and/or my interpretation of Genesis. This wasn’t really an issue for me, since my faith was, and is, based on believing that Jesus of Nazareth is in fact the resurrected Lord of the entire world (to roughly paraphrase how N.T. Wright puts it) and that the resurrection is God the Father’s vindication of Jesus’ messiahship (as a sinless, suffering servant that, mystery of mysteries, turns out to be God Himself, incarnate). None of that belief was ever predicated on a specific interpretation of Genesis with respect to scientific details, and as such, accepting evolution as a mechanism by which God creates did not alter those beliefs. (If you’d like to see a rational, historically-rooted investigation of the credibility of the resurrection, N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God is the standard by which others are judged.)

**********

Interview Series:

Ask an Atheist
Ask a Catholic
Ask an Orthodox Jew
Ask a Humanitarian
Ask a Mormon
Ask a Mennonite

And look for Justin Taylor’s responses to “Ask a Calvinist” on Thursday.

**********

82 Comments - See all Comments to Rachel's blog post

**********

Select Comments by Dennis and Rachel:

Dennis Venema21 hours agoin reply to Tildeb

Hi Tideb,

Thanks for the comments. I've read your comments a few times, and it still seems to me that you are working with the assumption that if there is anything at all to theism, there should be gaps in "natural explanations" to be found. I don't agree, as you might suspect. My view is that what we experience as natural explanations are in fact part of the providence of God ordaining and sustaining his creation. I fully recognize that this is not a scientific view, as I pointed out in the original post. Why do I accept theism (specifically Christianity)? Because of my views on who Jesus was, and that the resurrection took place. Is that science? No, like many things in life, it's a mix of logic, faith and historical reasoning. If you're interested in a substantial treatment, see Wright's book on the resurrection I reference above.

It seems to me that you lean towards naturalism / scientism, the view that only science can arrive at truth, and that nature is all that there is. I understand that view, and I respect it, even if I don't agree with it. The challenge for scientism is that it is based on a philosophical premise (that science is the only source of truth) that science itself cannot establish through the scientific method. One blogger I follow is a philosopher (and not a theist) who frequently calls out folks in the new atheist camp over this issue. His name is John Pieret, and I'll post a link to one of his recent blogs on this topic below. John can say it better than I can, and it's worth a read.

In short, I think both sides need to be epistemologically humble. We agree that the scientific method is a powerful means to discover truth about how the world works. I view that truth as a revelation of how God works in the world through natural means. You, I think, view that truth as indicating that no God (or gods) is/ are necessary for nature to function. The main point I'm trying to make is that neither position is something amenable to the tools of science.

Best,

Dennis

http://dododreams.blogspot.com...

**********

Dennis Venema21 hours agoin reply to April Karli

I think Matt's suggestion is a good one - a regular biology textbook coupled with your guidance that the science is a window into how God created. As far as I know there isn't much on the Evolutionary Creation view for children (yet). My own kids are 8 and 6, and this issue is something I face as well.

Pete Enns (a biblical scholar and colleague at BioLogos) has recently published a homeschool Bible curriculum, though, that you may find helpful:

http://olivebranchbooks.net/

**********

Rachel Held Evans1 day agoin reply to Sarah Moon

Dennis' suggestions are fantastic. I'd add:

• The Language of God by Francis Collins,
• The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton,
• Saving Darwin by Karl Giberson,
• Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne - Jerry's an atheist, so he doesn't offer much insight into the faith/science conversation, but for some reason his presentation of the evidence for evolution made the most sense to this English major!