Matter and Spirit Blogs

The attached documents supplement the Sunday School Lesson for the First Sunday of January (Epiphany Sunday).

1. The outline used for the lesson with notes.

Lesson Outline (MS Word Format)

Lesson Outline (PDF Format)

2. An article from Nature Physics regarding a theory that the early universe was liquid.

Early Universe Was a Liquid (MS Word Format)

Early Universe Was a Liquid (PDF Format)

3. This is a more-or-less historical sketch of cosmological models.

A Sketch of Theories about the Evolution of the Universe (MS Word Format)

A Sketch of Theories about the Evolution of the Universe (PDF Format)

By Peter Bryant

The Importance of Paradox

One of the things that make Christian theology so interesting to me is the willingness of Christian thinkers to embrace paradox. When I was about sixteen, I heard a man say something from the pulpit that I’ll never forget. “All truth lies in a paradox.” I’ve been contemplating paradoxes ever since; and, the older I get, the more I believe that simple statement is the key to embracing reality. No one who is current in contemporary science can reject the notion that, at some level, reality becomes paradoxical.

Religious thinkers and philosophers have been comfortable with paradox for some time. Paradox is one of the fundamental concepts of Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity. Almost everyone knows that the Buddhists embrace it. But many outside of religious circles find it surprising that Judeo-Christian thought is quite comfortable with the notion of paradox. Everyone who believes the Christian concept of the Messiah must embrace paradox.

The Messianic Paradox – The God Who Suffers
During this season of the Christian year, Christians are typically engaged in contemplating the importance of the greatest paradox there is. “The Word [of God] became flesh and dwelt among us.” [1] Paul wrote Timothy that the concept that “God was manifest in the flesh” is a great mystery (read paradox). [2]

According to most Christian theologies, the creator unites with his creation in the most intimate manner possible; he becomes a part of his creation. He enters into its suffering. He fully and completely becomes “The Compassionate God” [3], which is essential for mercy to exist. Compassion means “to suffer alongside another.” In order to do this, God must limit himself and be constrained by the creation’s temporal restrictions.

In the Exodus story, when God delivers Israel from Egypt, he discloses many revelations about himself. But the one that stands out most in my mind is his statement to Moses that “I know their sorrows.” [4] This amazing statement forever sets the God of Israel apart from all others. Isaiah sees the Messiah prophetically afar off and calls him “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” [5]

How Can God Suffer?

So the ultimate problem is this. How can the creator truly know the sufferings of His creation? To know something means that you experience it. Most religions do not allow God to suffer. How can God experience suffering? And if God cannot experience suffering, how can he have compassion? And without compassion, how can he show mercy?

The Muslims and the Deists teach that God cannot know the sufferings of his/her creation. The god of Islam doesn’t care for the creation; he transcends it and cannot be a part of it. According to Islamic teachings, at the judgment God will say to those on his left hand “to hell and I do not care” and to those on his right hand “to heaven and I do not care.” [6] Thus it should be no surprise that the concept of mercy is foreign to most Muslims. The Judeo-Christian God is a God of mercy, which implies compassion, which implies acquaintance with suffering.

The Solution Lies in a Paradox

The Christian believes that the answer to this question lies in a paradox. Christians believe that the merciful God of Moses and the Prophets must be a God that enters into the sufferings of his creation. The ultimate paradoxical solution is found in the incarnation of God as a man. The paradox lies in the idea that the unchanging, eternal, omnipotent God (the transcendent God) can become changing, temporal and limited (the immanent God).

The psalmist sees this when he writes of the Messiah, “my substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.” [7] The phrase “lowest parts of the earth” refers the smallest components of creation. [8] The infinite God becomes a part of his creation, with his body being formed from the lowest parts of the cosmos. The Highest becomes the Lowest. [9]

The eternal Word of God becomes flesh (temporal dust). The psalmist says that God knows we are only dust. Scientists describe the building blocks of nature as “quantum dust.” In the Genesis story man is made from the dust of the earth. This is an amazingly apt description of the reality that modern science has discovered. By becoming flesh, the Word of God is able to truly know the sufferings of the creation and “by his knowledge … justify the many.” [10] The Eternal becomes the Temporal.

The Humility of God

That the Creator limits (humbles) himself by physically connecting and entering into temporal relationship with the creation is hinted at as early as Genesis. “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” [11] Here we see the interface of God and the creation as the Spirit of God moves upon the face of the great deep.

Again we see the Voice [Word] of God “walking in the garden” in the Garden of Eden story. [12] God appears to Abraham and “eats” with Abraham in the story of Lot. [13] Many more examples from Moses and the Prophets could be given in which God enters into an intimate temporal relationship with the creation. These theophanies set the stage for the ultimate disclosure, the revelation of God himself humbled in flesh.

The Christian concept of God is that God is not indifferent to the sufferings of the creation like the god of the Deists or Muslims. Unlike the Buddhist concept of the eternal, God is a person and his personhood carries with it temporal and relational elements. God loves the creation and is not afraid to partake of its joys, while not being defiled by its temporal weaknesses. As a matter of fact, partaking in the creation is the key to unification with the creation, which is the panentheistic vision of the new heavens and new earth spoken of in Isaiah 65-66, II Peter 3:13, Revelation 3:12, and Revelation 21:1, 2. God empties himself and becomes one with us (Immanuel – God with us) that we may be full and become one with God (children of God).

A Meditation on the Paradox of the Incarnation

God enters into the suffering of his creation and, by entering into its suffering, secures a promise to the creation of deliverance from suffering. [14] By emptying himself, he finds ultimate fulfillment. [15] By losing, he wins. [16] And, through his emptiness we find fullness. [17]

Notes and References

1. John 1:14

2. I Timothy 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

3. Deuteronomy 4:31, Romans 9:15

4. Exodus 3:7

5. Isaiah 53:3. The Jews believe the man of sorrows is Israel. Christians believe he is the Messiah because the nation of Israel cannot possibly fulfill all of the criteria set forth for the man of sorrows. Fortunately, the work of the Messiah is not hindered by our beliefs; and, my beliefs do not require others to believe what I do about the Messiah in order to receive his benefits. According to this prophecy, the Messiah is satisfied with the travail of his soul (53:11). It is difficult to understand how the Messiah could be satisfied with anything other than complete redemptive success: hence the justification of the sixth word of the Christ from the cross, “It is finished (Gk. Tetelestai).” His purpose was accomplished.

6. Larson, Warren, Islamic Eschatology: Implications for Christian Witness, p.5, footnote 22. URL http://www.ciu.edu/muslimstudies/Articles/Islamic%20Eschatology.%20Larson.doc

7. Psalm 139:15

8. Notice how the psalmist doesn’t give these components a name; the “lowest parts” suffices to describe the concept. As our science progresses, this text remains true.

9. “For thus says the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” (Isaiah 57:15)

10. Isaiah 53:11

11. Genesis 1:2

12. Genesis 3:8

13. Genesis 18:8

14. Romans 8:21-23

15. Philippians 2:6 literally rendered says that the Word of God emptied himself into the form of a man. Because he emptied himself, the fullness of the Godhead dwells in his body. (Colossians 2:9)

16. Hebrews 2:14

17. John 1:16a “And of his fullness have all we received”

By Dr. Robert L. Richardson

The New Testament epistle of James likely emerged from a sermon preached to the Christians in Jerusalem by James, the brother of Jesus. In less than an hour of proclamation, James describes the basic characteristics of a just society, and suggests that those with a “pure and genuine religion” (1:27)* are to lead the way in its implementation.

The focus of the epistle centers on individual and community faith, the results of which are to extend a helping and protective hand to those in greatest need.

Here’s what a just society looks like to Jesus’ brother:

(1) an economic system that is equitable. Specifically, James addresses those wealthy land-owners who are controlled by greed (4:13), so much so that they refuse to pay the wages of those who toil in the their fields (5:4). The owners know that the poor have no recourse but to keep working hoping for a measly pittance sometime in the future.

(2) a justice system that treats all fairly. The writer laments a judicial process strongly influenced by the rich that, in turn, is structured to oppress the poor (2:6-7). The poor have no legal options.

(3) a social system that is non-discriminatory. Jesus’ brother suggests that a just society should take care of the orphans and widows (1:27) and the poor laborers in the fields.

(4) a political system that has checks and balances. In the strongest terms, James suggests that a part of the role of the church is to provide alternatives, and thus judgment by action and default, to a corrupt society in which they lived. For example, the believers are to add the much needed characteristics of wisdom (1:5;3:13-17), the value of human beings(1:18), civility in relationships (1:19; 3:1-12), care for the poor (1:27; 2:15-16)), fairness in the courts (2:6-7; 5:6), and non-discrimination (2:1-4).

(5) an education system that searches for truth. The epistle of James is a teaching instrument, the foundation of which references the source of wisdom (1:5), “the word of truth” (1:18), “ the word” (1:21), “the perfect law” (1:25), and the “law of the Kingdom” (2:8). The writer speaks of bringing people to the truth (5:19), and speaking the truth (5:12).

(6) a religious system that is unbiased and servant-oriented. James seems to take care to ensure that the church in Jerusalem is free of the biases so evident in society. In addition, he draws a sharp distinction between Christians and other religious groups by his emphasis upon faith and works. In essence, he suggests that a social oriented gospel (2:14-26) is critical to a “pure and genuine” (1:27) faith.

Throughout the epistle, James frequently references trials and tribulations (1:3, 12) and keeps calling for patience and endurance (1:2-4;5:7). Apparently, the church in Jerusalem had experienced all of the biases, inequities, and discriminations the society had to offer. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that James was so adamant that the church of Christ was to be different, indeed a change-agent in the larger society.

* All Scripture references are from Today’s English Version (TEV).

This website is dedicated to the interaction of science and spirituality, or faith. I mostly write about applying scientific thinking to matters of faith and harmonizing faith and science, but occasionally I write a mostly spiritual entry. This is just such an entry. I want to talk about the the common position among Christians today that believing the right things is essential to be accepted by God.  In this entry, I throw out a few thoughts to challenge this position.

Cornelius – A Worshipper in Ignorance

First of all, let me state for the record that I think it is possible for people who have never even heard of a bible to have faith (trust or confidence) in the invisible, creator, savior God and that faith has nothing to do with believing the right things. A clear example of this from the bible is a man called Cornelius (Acts 10), who prayed to God even prior to becoming a believer in Jesus as the Messiah. [1] Cornelius was not even a Jew. [2]

Cornelius was a pagan Roman Centurion. But, according to the story, there was something about Cornelius, even in his ignorance of divine revelation, that God is said to have accepted (Acts 10:34, 35). I encourage you to compare Cornelius’ private devotion to God with other public “believers” (I think a better phrase is “religious folk”) of whom it is said that they were rejected by God (e.g., Judas). I have known many people who knew almost nothing about the bible who gave strong evidence of being a private worshipper of God. [3]

Believing Right

What most Christians mean when they talk about faith in God is belief in the right things, or believing right, as Dr. Richardson said in his recent post. Of course, the problem with making right belief a requirement for salvation, or any other divine benefit, is the answer to the following question. To what degree is believing the right things a requirement? If we don’t believe right, do we go to hell? According to most Christians, the penalty for not believing right is often eternal damnation, but where is that teaching specifically found in the bible?

For example, are we supposed to believe that the bible is inspired or infallible? This is faith in the bible. If so, to what extent are we supposed to believe that teaching? In other words, do we just believe that the bible is inspired in the original tongues, or are we supposed to believe that it is inspired in translation as well? Also, what are we supposed to believe about the various translations of the bible into English? Are they all equally inspired, or just a particular one? This is important since they are all different in significant ways. If we don’t believe right about the bible, do we go to hell? Where is that teaching specifically found in the bible itself?

Are we supposed to believe a particular system of salvation? This is faith in a particular theology. For example, is it right to believe in Calvinism (a theology of extreme determinism, fatalism); or, is it right to believe in a theology of Arminianism (a theology of extreme indeterminism, divine impotence)? Are we supposed to believe we are saved by grace, or by faith alone, or by works alone, or by some combination of grace, faith and works? If we don’t believe the right thing about salvation, do we go to hell? Where is that teaching specifically found in the bible itself?

Is it required that we believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis? This is faith in a literal interpretation of the bible. Many Christians believe that Genesis is the inspired word of God and we must do our best to interpret it. This is faith in a providential God. If we don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, or even that Genesis is inspired by God, do we go to hell? Where is that teaching specifically found in the bible itself?

You can see the problem with a right belief requirement for true discipleship (which is typically equated with eternal salvation itself.) And yet almost all so-called Christians have this kind of requirement for discipleship, if not explicitly outlined in Articles of Faith, or Confessions, or Associations, or Fellowships, or Conventions, then implicitly required by our speech and actions toward others.

Most of us do not believe the same things about much of anything if you get nit-picky about it. That would mean that there are few saved people in the world. If this is true, then Revelation 7:9 cannot be inspired (there goes biblical inspiration. ) For there, John sees an innumerable host of saved people out of every nation (even the so-called pagan ones) and kindred (family unit), and people (ethnicity), and tongue (dialect). [4]

We ALL need to be careful not to make believing the right things a requirement for salvation, or even discipleship, because if right belief is required, there is precious little hope for any of us.

Notes and References

1. I might add that, according to the text, Cornelius was accepted by God as a true worshipper prior to his identification of Jesus as the Messiah, although he certainly didn’t believe right. I dare say he never believed right, since infallibility is not a human trait.

2. Acts 10:26 – No Jew would fall down to worship a man.

3. It is common in Christian circles in our time to discount people who don’t make a public profession of faith as “unsaved.” It seems odd to me that many of these “unsaved” people act more like “saved” people than so-called “saved” people act. Maybe the criterion of “public profession” isn’t what we should be looking at. After all, it was Jesus who said, “by their fruit shall ye know them,” not “by their profession of faith.”

4. After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Last weekend I had an interesting experience with my family. After attending a family reunion, my son and I went to my parent’s house so that he could play with his cousins. My mom, sister and I were talking about my niece (actually my 1st cousin once removed, but she calls me uncle and I call her niece because of age differences) and her husband leaving my sister’s home back in July as she went into labor. I made the statement that I remembered them leaving in a hurry.

My sister said, “You can’t remember that because you were not even there.” Well, if you knew my family, you would know that a long debate ensued with everyone involved trying to figure out how I knew the details of an event which I did not attend. Details, that I swore I remembered.

Well, it turns out that my memory of the event is false. I was not there. Yet, I have a clear memory of my niece and her husband leaving the house in labor! How can such a thing happen? It turns out that there is an explanation and we discovered it during our conversation.

The night that my niece went into labor, my wife and I were watching a movie called The Illusionist, which I highly recommend as a chick flick that a guy will like as well. As a matter of fact, immediately after the movie was over, I called my sister to tell her to watch it if she had not already. During that conversation, she told me that my niece had left her house in a tremendous rush because she had gone into labor.

Here is what we figured out. Either…

1. My sister’s description of the event was so vivid that my mind created a memory of the event as if I had been there…OR

2. I subsequently had a dream in which I witnessed the event and the dream became a memory.

There is a further complication. At dinner that evening, we recanted the story to my brother. He told us that he actually has a memory of another time we were all together at my sister’s house and my niece and her husband left the house in a hurry for another reason. So…

3. I possibly merged my sister’s story with an actual memory of another event.

All of this leads me to the point of this entry. The mind is a tricky thing!

How many people have been convicted of crimes based on memories of other people (or perhaps their own flawed memories)? Perhaps these are memories of things done to them in childhood, or under some other kind of duress. I myself have had occasions in which my memory of an event was not entirely accurate according to other people who were there, and yet, to my mind, I was not lying. I have seen this happen to others (based on their vehemence and a knowledge of the frailty of the human mind) as well.

I suggest much care should be given when claiming a memory…especially one that hurts others.

After establishing the conviction that all knowledge is tentative in my last post, you may wonder if it is possible to actually know anything.  It is, but with the caveat that there is some uncertainty associated with all knowledge.  This is both a scientifically acceptable definition of our state of knowledge as well as a theologically acceptable one.  Neither scientists nor theologians should claim infallible, absolutely certain knowledge of any kind. 

Faith is never defined in the Bible to be absolute certainty. On the contrary, it is described as a form of knowledge that “is not seen,” and which, being based in experience, reason, and trust in the invisible creator, forms the metaphysical basis of mankind’s hope for the future.  Paul describes our theological state of knowledge as “seeing through a glass darkly,” not clearly.

The Unity of Knowledge

The certainty with which we are able to hold knowledge is related to the unifiability of that item of knowledge with other concepts which we hold to be true.  This principle, which is called The Unity of Knowledge, is fundamental to a coherent world view.  An idea’s inherent ability to be unified with other concepts (at least in principle) should be a requirement to hold that idea as tentatively true.

The unity of knowledge means that all forms of knowledge should fit into a person’s worldview in a coherent and sensible way.  Any concept that has to be explained away, or accepted even though it is counterfactual, is not a unifiable concept. 

Coherent Knowledge

The Big Bang and Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing) are examples of coherent scientific and theological concepts.  According to modern scientific theory, the universe had a definite beginning.  This beginning was the beginning of both space (x, y, z = 0, 0, 0) and time (t = 0).  The current scientific concept is that the universe is (at least) a four dimensional space-time continuum (three dimensions of space and one of time) which began in the so-called Big Bang.  This is a recent scientific notion.  Prior to the discovery of scientific evidences for the big bang cosmology the cosmos was considered by most cosmologists [1] to be eternal.

The Judeo-Christian concept of space and time is basically the same as the contemporary scientific understanding of the nature of the cosmos.  According to most Judeo-Christian theologies, space and time had a definite beginning.  As further evidence of their coherence, relativistic concepts like the Minkowski Block Universe were anticipated by Christian theological discourse as early as the third century C.E. so that even this strange interpretation of relativity theory is coherently within the grasp of Christian theologians and philosophers. [2]

Incoherent Knowledge

Some Creationists have stated that, whereas they cannot deny the existence of fossil evidence for the extreme age of the earth, as well as the apparent evolution of species throughout those ages shown in those fossils, they believe that these fossils were placed by God in the strata as a “test” of our faith.  The same thing goes for all of the other overwhelming physical evidence for the geologic ages and evolutionary science. [3]

I cannot conceive of this belief as anything but incoherent with both theology and science.  How can one possibly make the idea of a trickster God coherent with either a scientific worldview or a nominally Judeo-Christian worldview?  It is a strange theology (although perhaps not uncommon) that believes in a God that deliberately tries to trick and deceive people. 

This view is theologically incoherent because it is not reasonable to believe that the God otherwise proclaimed by these individuals (logical, rational, compassionate and equitable) behaves in such a manner.  It is scientifically incoherent because science teaches us that we can learn something about the true nature of reality by objectively studying it.

References and Notes

1.  I limit this statement to cosmologists on purpose.  Many scientists in other fields did believe that the universe had a beginning, but this was not a strictly scientific belief at the time.

2.  I do not necessarily advocate the block universe (total determinism) here although the scientific arguments in its favor are numerous.  Einstein obviously believed the Minkowski interpretation as evidenced by a personal letter he wrote upon the death of a friend just a few weeks before his own death.

For my own part, the block universe interpretation of relativity theory presents issues with the concept of free will since it teaches that future events are immutable and as impossible to change as past events. If I ever feel scientifically and theologically qualified to discuss them, I may write about temporal theories at some point.  In the meantime, I simply state here that Christian theology anticipated this scientific discussion by almost two-thousand years.  This is a strong indication of scientific/theological coherence.

3.  Francis Collins discusses this problem with some Creationist’s theology at length in his book The Language of God.

Baptists were once known for their historic adherence to Baptist principles such as the priesthood of all believers, the separation of church and state, the autonomy of the local church, and individual responsibility for interpreting the Bible and applying it to life.  Unfortunately, in the mid to late 1970s a small group of men organized a seditious movement that eventually resulted in the enslavement of multitudes of Baptists to a theocratic political machine that would change the public face of Baptists to this day. 

There are still Baptists that hold to the principles outlined in the first sentence, but it has taken almost thirty years to organize a significant Baptist resistance to the antiquated theocratic ideas of the fundamentalists.  The historical Baptists, which fought against theocracies, are reemerging. 

This online book provides a nice survey of the history of Baptists and the fundamentalist coup which has hurled many good people back to the Dark Ages.

Enjoy!

NOTE:  The links at the right of the page are nonfunctional.  Use the chapter numbers at the top of the page, or better yet, just download the whole PDF.  It’s free!

Link to The Fundamentalist Takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention

All knowledge is tentative. What I mean by this is that no form of knowledge is absolute in the sense that it is unquestionable. Knowledge in all forms is provisional and must constantly be reevaluated against other knowledge and experience to remain a viable part of our accepted world view.

Most of us are ready to acknowledge that all scientific knowledge is provisional, but I have found resistance to the idea that cherished ideas in the realm of religion and spirituality must be subjected to the same rejection criterion. However, it seems clear that we can commit intellectual suicide if we do not apply this same rigid skepticism to our received religious and spiritual knowledge.

My understanding and interpretation of biblical (or other religious) texts must be subject to the same uncertainty as any other form of knowledge. If our search for truth is sincere, this can be done without fear. Even if I believe that the texts themselves are the infallible word of God, my interpretation of those texts bears scrutiny. And religious students throughout the ages have changed their interpretations of the texts when secular knowledge showed them that their previous interpretations could not be true.

Galileo’s Impact on Biblical Literalism

A perfect example of this can be found in the case-study of Galileo. I’ll say more about this particular case later in order to dispel some scientific mythology which has crept into the official story, but suffice it to say that Galileo challenged the preconceived Ptolemaic notion of a fixed Earth in a scientifically convincing way. As a result of his evidences, and those that accumulated after him, the Christian community eventually officially rejected the Aristotelian cosmological model after centuries of its dominance.

Because of this interpretative change, not even Young Earth Creationists (YEC) of our day interpret phrases like “sun rise” and “sun set” to mean that the sun literally rises and sets. They are interpreted to mean that the sun apparently rises and sets. And even to this day, “sun rise” and “sun set” are used by everyone from common folk on the streets to scientists in the lab to describe the times of day that the terminator passes over our locale. [1]

Do Literalists Interpret the Bible?

People like Ken Ham (a leading creationist) claim that they don’t interpret the Bible, they just read it. This is not true. Interpretation is inherent in the very act of reading. Ken is using knowledge of English acquired in school to correctly read the English syntax and grammar. He uses historical arguments that he acquired from somewhere else to interpret the six days of the creation week as literal history. He uses Hebrew knowledge he acquired from a Hebrew lexicon to interpret the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1 and 2. He even uses knowledge of Greek to interpret New Testament texts.

No one, not even biblical literalists, read the Bible in a vacuum. So, the question is not whether or not literalists like Ken Ham interpret the Bible, it is rather, what information outside of the Bible are they using to interpret it? Everyone uses extra-biblical information to interpret the Bible. It is certainly possible (although not probable) that Ken’s information is correct and mine is wrong; but, Ken interprets the Bible just as I do.

The Literalists have it Backwards

It is impossible to use the Bible to interpret scientific information apriori. It is imperative however, that scientific information be used to arrive at the correct interpretation of the Bible. It is not a reasonable position that biblical texts, which are thousands of years old, even if they are the infallible word of God, would, or even could, speak scientific truth to a primitive people. They certainly could not speak scientific truth in a manner detailing our current scientific understanding of the cosmos because the people of that time would not have understood it.

In my opinion, this is exactly how biblical literalists loose their ability to mature in their knowledge of God and creation. By accepting a form of knowledge (biblical literalism) that is not subject to revision in the light of external evidence, the biblical literalist has essentially shut off himself to any knowledge outside of the Bible that conflicts with his literal interpretation.

Progressive Revelation

A much more satisfying theology of biblical inspiration in my opinion is that God inspired men and women to speak truths in a manner that would remain valid as scientific, historical, literary, sociological, psychological, and other forms of knowledge increased. This would probably mean that much of the scientific knowledge would not be literal in nature, but metaphorical. [2] This would enable the truth to be milked from the texts long after the age in which they were originally spoken.

This also leaves room for a theology of progressive revelation, which most Christians acknowledge. No adherent to New Testament theology would deny that new knowledge (New Testament texts) sheds light on old knowledge (Old Testament texts). Not only has our world evolved from primitive forms, but our understanding of it has as well. Not only has our scientific knowledge evolved from primitive forms, but our spiritual, or religious, knowledge has as well. Militant atheists accuse all religious people of being static, but the Christian religion has been anything but static. It has evolved in every age. It has interpreted and reinterpreted ancient texts in the light of contemporary knowledge. The biggest mistake any Christian can make, whether Pope, priest, preacher, theologian or laity, is to claim any form of infallibility. All knowledge is tentative.

References and Notes

[1] James Burke, in The Day the Universe Changed, tells this story of the great philosopher Wittgenstein.

“Somebody once observed to the eminent philosopher Wittgenstein how stupid medieval Europeans living before the time of Copernicus must have been that they could have looked at the sky and thought that the sun was circling the earth. Surely a modicum of astronomical good sense would have told them that the reverse was true. Wittgenstein is said to have replied: ‘I agree. But I wonder what it would have looked like if the sun had been circling the earth.’” Burke, James, The Day the Universe Changed, London Writers Ltd., 1985, Page 11

Of course, it would have looked exactly the same, at least from an earth-bound perspective, without the aid of telescopes. But that’s the point. The people weren’t stupid, they simply lacked knowledge that we have.

[2] I used the word “much” on purpose. There are certainly literal scientific truths in the Old Testament. For example, the worker ant is described as a “she” in the Proverbs. It turns out that this is correct. I doubt that they had the means of sexing ants in that day. Is it right by coincidence, or by design? I have a lot more of these, so be careful if you say coincidence. My question will ultimately be, how many coincidences do you need before you see intelligence and design behind it?

Perhaps I should begin by informing the reader that I am neither a scientist nor the son of a scientist. I am an old-school Baptist minister and educator with graduate training in theology, education, counseling, and human development.

Early Encounters With Darwinism

My early encounters with the name, “Charles Darwin,” and the reference to “evolution” came from the pulpit. I heard several preachers rant and rave about that infidel Charles Darwin and berate “his theory that human beings were direct descendants of monkeys.” Included was always a warning that to believe in evolution merited a one-way ticket to hellfire and damnation, and forever, I may add.

As a junior-high student in the early ‘50s, I had no idea who Charles Darwin was, and certainly did not know anything about his writings. In fact, I couldn’t have spelled the word “everlooshen” if I had been asked, much less explain what it was. Nonetheless, what I heard as the “bottom line” was frightening. It was not the “man from monkey” part, but the consequences of even giving the subject serious attention. Early on, I resolved that I was going to side with the preachers and play it safe from this threat of being barbecued for eternity.

However, as I reflected on this and other early church experiences, I realized that I had been taught, mostly by default, to check my mind at the church-house door. And to some extent, I was encouraged to leave it there for safe-keeping as I faced a non-stained-glassed world.

I was taught that believing the Bible as interpreted by Baptists was most important. Thinking and questioning were characterized as affronts to the Word of God and a lack of faith. Especially was this true if one’s perspective was a bit off-center from the prevalent Baptist teachings of the day.

Retrieving My Mind

With the assistance of one high school teacher in particular, I began to be assured that thinking was a virtue, not a sin. Eventually I had the courage to go back to the church-house door where I had checked my mind, dig through a carefully crafted theological sandbox, and retrieve my mind. I found it covered with the sand of orthodoxy, and began a long and arduous journey of trying to separate worthwhile beliefs from such things as ignorance, institutional control, arbitrary power, intimidating guilt, and unimaginable fear. Also, I found the grit of a multitude of unexamined presuppositions.

I have found this journey to “love God with all your mind” both rewarding and difficult. It has been rewarding because it helped to set me free from apathy, ignorance, fear, and the threat of eternal damnation if I didn’t “believe right.” It was difficult because many of those whom I respected and loved did not understand why I was determined to bring my mind into the church when bringing my soul, so I was told, was sufficient.

Early Considerations of Faith vs Reason

In early adulthood, I decided to examine the long-standing confrontation of faith versus reason. A part of this journey for me included reading Andrew Dickson White’s classic, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology. That book had a powerful influence on my thinking. It contributed greatly to my efforts to visualize faith and reason as walking hand in hand, not constantly at war - one against the other. And when reason can walk no more, then faith would leap ahead, not contrary to reason, but beyond reason.

For example, my scientist friends report that the universe apparently was born some 13.7 billion years ago. It all started with the “Big Bang.” I accept these findings as a scientific fact. To do so is in no way contrary to my faith that God is the creator of the universe. While scientific evidence may not go beyond the Big Bang, I leap beyond this with a faith supposition that God is the Creator. Is my faith contrary to reason? I do not conclude that it is. I consider it beyond reason.

Again, my scientist friends say that there is no way the earth could have survived if it had actually stopped spinning (stood still) so the army of Israel could have additional time to battle the Amorites, as recorded in Joshua 10:12-13. I have no difficulty with concluding that my scientist friends are correct. Apparently, this story is some type of myth, legend, or parable. I do not interpret passages like this as history. But that being said, it does not diminish my faith that God is mysteriously involved in the created order.

The Hard Science of Evoltuion

Along the way, I decided that I would explore the subject of evolution, take a look at the writings of Darwin and other evolutionists, and try to arrive at a layman’s understanding. As a result, I have long believed in evolution as a scientific fact that has included humankind in its process. It is not a theory in terms of speculation or conjecture, any more than music theory is to be approached as a highly suspicious or dubious method of teaching the fundamentals of music. To suggest that evolution is some hypothetical secularist approach to creation which needs to be balanced with fundamentalist Creationism is akin to suggesting that the Flat Earth Society ought to have equal time in the science classrooms to refute the “theory” that the earth is round.

The hard scientific facts are that all of life on this earth has emerged through a historical process called evolution. The most skilled and knowledgeable scientists have proven this process again and again. There are several debatable theories about the role genes play versus the influence of environment in explaining significant changes in the process. But the evolutionary process itself is a scientific fact - not speculative theory.

So Where’s the Conflict?

So what is the problem with evolution as a scientific fact? Well, the problem appears to stem from a literal, inerrant view of the Scripture. The problem for the Creationists, for example, is similar to that of the Flat Earth Society. This religious group claims that because the Bible speaks of the four corners of the earth (Rev. 7:1), then the earth must be flat. Likewise, the Creationists conclude that the earth was created in time and order exactly the way it is recorded in Genesis.

Unfortunately for the Flat Earth followers, neither pictures of the earth from outer space, nor the visual disappearance of ships over the horizon, are convincing to them that the earth is basically round. Perhaps it is no surprise that, from time to time, we need to be reminded that the blind can’t see. That is no sin in itself, but a self-imposed blindness, all the while pretending to see and proclaiming one’s pretensions as the “truth of God,” is ludicrous. In fact, labeling evolution as conjecture or hypothetical is not only anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, it is basically a dishonest approach usually offered to try to sustain a literal, infallible interpretation of the creation stories in Genesis.

I believe that the most important part of the creation issue is that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. That is the primary message of both chapters of Genesis. The how or method of creation is always secondary. The overwhelming scientific evidence is a process of evolution. Basically, it means that God has initiated and sustained the creation of life on this earth through the process of evolution. It is what many call, “theistic evolution.”

I have no difficulty with this concept. I believe in theistic evolution. To me, it is no more an issue than the scientific fact that the earth is round.

Time Is Required to Change (Even Evolution Teaches That)

However, I would ask for patience with those who have yet to arrive at this conclusion.

Perhaps we need to remember that it took the Catholic church 359 years (1633-1992) to admit that she was in error about the scientific findings of Galileo. So if we use that as a guide, we have about 241 years to go until our great, great grandchildren, somewhere down the line, will smile and admit our error about Darwin. Currently, we are at about 148 years and counting. “Truth is the daughter of time,” said Sir Francis Bacon. But 359 years beyond truth discovered seems a bit much!

Peace!

Have you ever noticed that, in many cases, after the teaching of a truth, the exact opposite of the teaching is performed?  I have two brief examples.

In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6) Jesus warns his disciples against vain repetitive prayer.  He follows this warning with an example prayer that has come to be known as The Lord’s Prayer.  The irony here is that this example prayer, given as an example of non-repetitive prayer and plain speech in prayer, has turned out to be one of the most mindlessly repetitive prayers in history.

This fact came home to me last week while repeating this prayer in church.  I came to the end of the repetition and realized that I didn’t remember saying the prayer.  I had mindlessly repeated a prayer that was given as an example against mindlessly repetitive prayer.  Now that’s oxymoronic.

Another example I thought of came to me as a result of preparing and presenting some Sunday school lessons on the interaction of science and faith.  When we’re in school, we are taught the scientific method.  This method consists of observing something in nature that doesn’t fit our preconceived ideas.  We then construct an hypothesis about why we think this is happening, design an experiment to test the hypothesis, perform the experiment, observe the results, and draw conclusions about whether or not our hypothesis is correct.

After the rote recitation of the scientific method we then perform an historical experiment that has been performed millions of times in the past.  The experiment confirms, in exactly the same way as the millions of times before, a generally accepted and well documented hypothesis or theory.  So we perform an experiment to confirm a preconceived notion using a method that is designed to test notions that violate our preconceptions.  Now that’s oxymoronic.

Can you think of some more?