Sunday, June 5, 2011
Did Adam have a belly button? Be careful how you answer.
The battle lines in the creation/evolution debate were drawn quite some time ago. From the Scopes trial, to the rise of American Fundamentalism, to the popularization of Young Earth Creationism, the American church has taken upon itself both the sword and the shield in defense of God's word against secularism. What's changing in the 21st century? The battlefield. No longer is the debate found only in the public arena. It has come home. Christians are speaking up in defense of Darwin. Scientific dogma is no longer taking a back seat to church dogma. Some would say the Devil has entered the church. Others applaud and are finding it comfortable out of the closet. The June Issue of Christianity Today does a fairly balanced job of reporting the more recent issues coming out of this debate. Like with any revolution, there have been some early casualties. But I don't see this going away. I for one have been especially fascinated with the creation/evolution debate for almost 20 years now but have never been more excited with the intricacy I see in God's Creation. What do you think? Do you foresee Evangelical Christianity (dare I say Fundamental Baptists) ever warming up to evolution? What ramifications are born out of the church accepting , or rejecting, evolution as a valid science? And finally, is this debate safe for discussion or out of bounds in our conservative circles?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Will Fundamental Baptists ever warm up to evolution? Did you really ask that question?:) I don't think so. There are enough battles raging over neck ties and haircuts before we could ever get there! Evangelical Christians on the other hand, outside the IFB movement, I do see warming up to it.
ReplyDeleteThe consequences for rejecting God's special creation of Adam and Eve as the first humans are a bit more serious than other area's of this debate. Our understanding of Romans, sin, death, and the fall are all affected.
Also, in my understanding, Genesis loses much of its meaning, as the language is pretty clear.
I think its safe to discuss this in our circles, as long as we are gracious, open minded, and choose wisely who we discuss it with. Some people cannot handle it, and will invetably get angry.
Fitzsy
Before I write anything here, I want to acknowledge my ignorance on the theory of evolution and what scientific evidences there are to establish that Darwinism/evolution is, in fact, true.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said here are some random thoughts I have about certain aspects of the theory of evolution's possible ramifications on the Christian faith, at least according to me.
1. I think that over the years my mind has opened to the possibility that our beginnings did not follow the exact pattern the was taught to me as a child. I understand and believe fully that the Bible is not a science book and it's intent is not to answer scientific questions of our beginnings. In addition, I also believe that if there is a God as the Bible tells us, and if this God created all things, as the Bible tells us, then true science will always reveal and point us to this God and not away from Him. What I often struggle to understand then, is what certain aspects of evolution would tell us about God. For example, the belief that humans came from apes, leaves me with a huge amount of questions and changes drastically how I view God. If there was a pre-human race, at what point did we then become fully human, at what point did we receive souls, conscience, at what point did we become "made in the image of God," and at what point did sin enter this world and how did that happen (assuming that there is now no literal Adam and Eve if we have evolved as a species.) The entire process of evolution...God starting things and then letting them evolve into what we have today, also changes my understanding of God. He now shifts from being a relational God who was intimately involved in each level of creation, to a being that is far removed from creation.
2. This also raises some questions to me about the validity of Scripture. If we've evolved as a human race, and there was no literal Garden of Eden and no literal Adam and Eve, then there was no original sin. If there was no original sin, then why do we need a Savior and what then is the point of the whole Bible? If the Bible is just myths like the other cultural mythologies of that day, then why should I bother to read any of it or believe any of it? I'm beginning a "teaching time" with 2 ladies who are, to my knowledge, unbelievers,but they desire to know and understand the Bible. They've asked me to show them how to read and understand the Bible. If the Bible can't be trusted as truth, then what should I tell them? Where does my authority come from to teach someone about God? If parts of it are just mythological, which parts? What about the virgin birth? Is that mythological too? How about Jesus? Was he really here? How do I know that he was? How do I teach them to read the Bible and to look to the Bible as an authority for truth?
3. I also struggle to understand why our understanding of science has now moved to be the authority for truth, and we now filter our understanding of scripture and God through the means of science. Like I said earlier I believe that true science will point us to God (if there is a God), but my observation has been that through the years our understanding (and interpretation) of science is constantly changing. What we believe to be truth about our universe today in 10, 20, 30+ years new discoveries often shown us something entirely different. If we are basing our understanding of truth and the Scriptures on what we think we know today through scientific evidence, what do we do if and when that changes?
And finally, I just found an article that addresses much better than I can articulate, some of the very thoughts that I've been thinking over the past couple of days. It can be found here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/06/06/sinned-in-a-literal-adam-raised-in-a-literal-christ/
(Sorry I don't know how to make this a hyperlink.)
Although I share the opinion/questions expressed, I am not mtg with 2 women. This was actually Cherie's writing.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think of this as a Capernican moment in intellectual history, so I do think that if the scientific evidence continues to overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution, then yes, eventually most (though not all ... after all, we still have geocentrics roaming the globe!) Christians will come around. Christianity has always, dare I say, evolved in response to new data (albeit sometimes slowly), so I see no reason to think this will not be the case even now.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, and as Cherie has pointed out, there certainly are more theological issues that would need to be sorted out in comparison with helio vs. geocentrism.
Some thoughts to your points, Cherie:
1. I do think some argue for a special imbuing of the image of god in a select pair of hominids. However, I'm not persuaded this is the way to go, theologically.
2. Can story/mythology also be a source of divine truth? Christians (like Pete Enns) who argue that Gen 1-3 is myth are not claiming that it is "just myths like the other cultural mythologies." It's certainly like other ancient creation mythologies, but it's also more as a divinely inspired mythology.
So regarding original sin (which, as we tend to understand it, is more Augustine than Bible anyway), could not the myth of Adam/Eve/Serpent/Eden teach us something profoundly true about human nature without being literal history? In this case, Jesus as savior remains necessary, not because of a literal Adam and Eve, but because of what we learn about human nature from the story. Just playing with some possibilities here. (As a side note, I tend to read Gen 2-3 as a kind of allegory for the story of Israel: Election, Rebellion, Exile.)
I'm not really convinced by the slippery slope argument, but then again, I'm probably the poster-boy for riding the slippery slope, so perhaps I'm not the best one to comment on that issue! :-)
3. I think we have no choice but to wrestle with our understanding of scripture in the light of natural revelation. Our understanding of science/nature will of course always be changing, as it should, when new information and better explanations come to light, but so also should our understanding of theology/scripture (as it eventually did in accepting heliocentrism). It's the nature of the beast of life under the sun, so to speak. I know this makes many people uncomfortable, including me sometimes, but I think we need to give up the expectation of a static theology. We cannot help but read scripture, and thus do theology, from within particular human/cultural frameworks (as the authors of scripture were also fully embedded within particular cultural frameworks) ... the frameworks are ever changing, and thus, so will the theologies.
As I reread my previous comment, it was a little less than gracious. I apologize if there are any IF Baptists reading this. I should not lump all IFB into the same category!
ReplyDeleteFitzsy
@ jvonehr - How much do you allow theologies to change? Frameworks do change, but do you think that there are things communicated in the Sripture that would mean the same thing to people in the early church, and 21st century American believers? I don't know that the changing of cultural frameworks necessitates the changing of core theology. Would Paul have changed the core (obviously he would have communicated differently) of what he wrote if he was writing Romans within a 21st century American cultural framework?
ReplyDeleteFitzsy
Fairly good conversation so far - I was hoping to pull a little more diversity in on a topic that is both culturally relavent and controversial in the church, but within limited readership, it's great to see how much theological diversity exists within our own families.
ReplyDeleteFitzy - a follow question to your question, How would you define Theology? Would you agree that Theology rests on language? God used human language and concepts to disclose himself to humans and we use our limited language to communicate incommunacable concepts of God to eachother. In this sense, how can theology be static? Underlying truths remain true (core theology?), but the pictures used to communicate these truths will certainly change as we change. Defining the underlying truths however, seems to be pretty divisive.
Cherie, good thoughts and thanks for sharing. I've wrestled with these and more as I've moved across the spectrum of scientific creationism. A couple of quick comments here before this post dies. What does Evolution (or nature, or science) tell us about God? We can only speculate. I know what you're getting at though and wrestle over the reality of a creation very unlike the Eden described in Gen 1 & 2. With that said, the literal account of creation and the fall in Genesis also raises difficult questions about God. What kind of God would curse all of creation and every human from now to the end of time, sending many to eternal damnation because 1 guy screwed up? Seems a bit harsh. Is Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection, the pinnacle of all scripture, really plan B? All views will lead to questions. As Fitzsy brought up in a previous post, our view is limited and sometimes God's ways do go beyond our ability to understand them. I think this can be applied to both sides of the conversation. Does evolution present a God who is distant? Some argue the opposite. While the God who creates through natural law is still intimately involved sustaining his creativity, the 6 day creator finished his work millenia ago and is now at rest. Just saying that there is more than one way to spin it.
On myths, maybe we misunderstand their nature. The literalness of a particular story says nothing to the truth that its portraying. I don't think you can write off myth theories because they make God out to be a liar. This comes down to language, culture, and God choosing to reveal Truth in a particular language to a particular culture of a particular people, limited by their language and culture just as much as we are today.
Science progresses more than it changes. Our understanding of nature is under constant refinement. But should this make us skeptical of the collective knowledge of the physical universe gained over the past centuries? If 'true science' actually points us to God, how do we recognize true science? That which affirms what we already think we know about God? Not so useful then is it. Good link to Keller, who, although argues for the literalness of Adam here, warns against interpreting scripture in void of modern science (as did Augustine, which I only bring up because you mentioned his concept of original sin).
Fun conversation. Hope to hear some more
To be honest, fitzy, I'm still sorting a lot of this out, and I'm guessing I'll never actually get it completely sorted. At the heart of this is my own shifting epistemology, and while I've been "great" at the deconstructive process, I haven't really taken the time to seriously engage the reconstructive enterprise. So the ensuing ramblings should probably be seen as experimental musings, and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteWith this qualification in mind, I tend to see *all* theology as the *human* - and as such, inherently limited - attempt to apprehend the divine. As krook noted (though I don't presume krook actually agrees with what I'm saying here!), theology is inextricably (and unavoidably) woven into the fabric of human language, culture, etc. And it's not just that we, as doers of theology, are bound by the trappings of our own humanity and our own limited and culturally-shaped interpretations. I'm convinced that the main sources of theology - scripture and tradition - likewise reflect the limited human perspectives of various thinkers who are trying to apprehend the divine from within their own cultural contexts. So for me, it's useful to distinguish between Truth, which I identify with the unchanging God, and theology, which reflects our ongoing, and quite dynamic, attempt to grasp Truth. At best, theology allows us only partial and limited glimpses of Truth. Now I'm still a good Protestant (well, the good is debatable!), so I don't completely disregard scripture (and tradition) - I believe that God in his providence has allowed this collection of texts and traditions to play an especially privileged (though not absolutely determinative) role in shaping the thinking and actions of his people.
So to flesh this out a bit (and to try to distinguish my view from complete nihilism), let's take the corest of core in terms of Christian theology - the trinity. A couple of things are clear to me. Trinitarian theology, as expressed in the major creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, Chalcedon), are later (post-NT) developments that reflect the conceptual-philosophical context of 3rd-5th centuries. Certainly some of the main ingredients are there in the NT (esp. John), but these ingredients are clearly filtered through the philosophical categories of late antiquity, esp. neo-Platonism. So scripture and tradition on something this fundamental exhibit dynamism. I'm not saying this makes the doctrine of the trinity false, but the concept is in my view a limited and contextually bound perspective on the divine nature. So when I recite the Apostle's creed on Sunday mornings, I do so not because I think the creed has perfectly and absolutely "captured" God's nature, but because I affirm the crucial role this contextually bound glimpse into the divine nature has played in the life of the church.
So bringing it back to the topic at hand, even if Paul assumed a literal Adam in Romans (which I think likely), I'm comfortable conceding that Paul may have been wrong on this detail, just as he would have most certainly held to an incorrect understanding of planetary movements (ptolemaic?), etc. This is not to arrogantly stand in judgment of Paul's intellect, but to recognize the obvious - our understanding of science and the universe is much more developed and sophisticated than it was in the first century. So I suspect Paul would write Romans very differently in the 21st century. At the very least, he might emphasize more explicitly Adam's role as a literary figure (which actually, he kind of does already in Romans, by framing Adam as a tupos/type).
My apologies for the length of this post, but hopefully I'm making at least some sense. (though I don't presume my ramblings have persuaded anyone!)