Vibrant Dance 2: Panel Discussion 4: Can Young-Earth and Old-Earth Christians Work Together to Build the Kingdom of Christ? What are the foundations for cooperation? What are the current impediments?

{RJW Note:  The fourth and last panel discussion was discussing the tensions among Christians that hold to different views of Genesis, again moderated by Craig Blaising (CB). The panel members were:  TB(eall), JD(uncan), WK(aiser), JR(eynolds), BW(altke), JW(alton). Also Genesis 1 and 2 are abbreviated as G1 and G2 respectively. Again, this post will be in the form of a pseudo-transcript. Due to some duties as a volunteer at the conference, I missed the first 20-25 minutes of this panel. My apologies, however, I think the gist is probably captured here.}

TB:  There are different levels of working together, and so many opportunities to cooperate, but we have need to be aware of and discuss those differences.

JR:  We need to get over worrying about wondering—if you are in love with someone, you are constantly in wonder of them. If you become skeptical or no longer filled with wonder, you no longer are in love {or love is decreasing}. We should always be in wonder about Christ and exploring and asking questions. We need to fight more and support those we agree with in their writing and research; ‘fight’ being a sincere non-acrimonious debate. Need to support young earth creationists with time and treasure to study actual scientific research to see what support exists there. We’re either nasty or wimpy. We need to disagree agreeably and agree disagreeably (i.e., keep things stirred up to keep up the wonder and keep exploring).

Vibrant Dance 2: Panel Discussion 3: Questions for Each Speaker About the Implications of Their Perspective

{RJW Note:  The third panel discussion was interaction based on the previous session, again moderated by Craig Blaising (CB). The panel members were:  TB(eall), JD(uncan), WK(aiser), JR(eynolds), BW(altke), JW(alton). Also Genesis 1 and 2 are abbreviated as G1 and G2 respectively. Again, this post will be in the form of a pseudo-transcript. It was also announced at the end of this session that there WILL be a Vibrant Dance 3 entitled, Created in the image of God: relationship between the brain and mind. No date has been set at this point.}

CB:  Do you see Adam & Eve as historical?

JR:  Yes. Both the Old and New Testaments say so. However, taking them as prototypes, while a bad move, would not kill Christianity, but it is not the way to go.

TB:  ABSOLUTELY. It is a grave problem for the faith if there is no historical Adam.

JW:  Adam’s presence in the genealogies present him as historical, yet the first couple are more importantly archetypal, but they can be simultaneously and without conflict archetypal and historical.

JD:  Yes, based on the New Testament and Genesis 1-3. We need to not find back ways around the text when run into scientific problems.

BW:  Yes. He sees Adam as the first human who had an awareness of God, and thus the need to worship, and an awareness of right and wrong, yet was not up to resisting the adversaries. He’s open to the idea there is more to the story about early humans than is explicitly given in the text. (e.g., Cain’s wife and those who wanted to kill him)

WK:  Yes. Genetics is the hardest challenge so far, but the interpretation of data is too early, and there will be interim problems, but it will shake out finally.

Vibrant Dance 2: The Implications of My Position on the Core Christian Doctrines

{RJW Note:  The second “panel” discussion was really each speaker taking 10 minutes to address the title issue. So this session was not a lot of back and forth but just a serial lecture by each panel member, again moderated by Craig Blaising (CB). The panel members were:  TB(eall), JD(uncan), WK(aiser), JR(eynolds), BW(altke), JW(alton). Also Genesis 1 and 2 are abbreviated as G1 and G2 respectively. Again, this post will be in the form of a pseudo-transcript. Not everyone took the full ten minutes, so some are shorter than others.}

CB:  Looking at the core Christian doctrines, is your view essential to the faith? In other words, if someone holds or does not hold your view, are they missing a core doctrine of faith?

WK:  Look at the Apostle’s Creed and as long as we stick to that, we’re fine. Yet a real implication of having an eternal God is a demand for non-eternal matter. Genesis IS important because it sets up the meta-narrative of the whole of Scripture. Atheists begin with a eternal universe, but the Bible begins with an eternal God, which offers meaning and gives the origin of universe. The universe cannot explain itself. Beliefs about age of earth and length of days are secondary to the fact that God created. By naming things, in ancient times, you claim authority and ownership of them. So therefore speaking things into existence, God claims ultimate authority and by creating us in His image, He imparts special status to us. Other (ancient near east) ANE creation accounts are very different and more materialistic, more like us, than the Bible. The God of the Bible is continuously active, not a Deist or Scientific God that winds things up and steps back to watch it unfold. The Bible makes enormous claims—Christ claims to have created the universe and now rules it. Creation was created for us—its pinnacle. Other ANE views are without purpose for the universe.

Vibrant Dance 2: Panel Discussion 1: Strengths and Tensions in Each of These Interpretations

{RJW Note: The second day of the conference was basically four panel discussions followed by another breakout session. The moderator for each panel was Dr. Craig Blaising (CB). I was able to get the gist of nearly all of the comments, and so will present them as a pseudo-transcript. The panel members were:  TB(eall), JD(uncan), WK(aiser), JR(eynolds), BW(altke), JW(alton). Also Genesis 1 and 2 are abbreviated as G1 and G2 respectively.}

CB:  Do you see G1/2 as one or two accounts? How do they interact?

BW: Agrees with WK on idea that G2 is a continuation and refocus of G1. He discussed the 12 waw’s {a letter in the Hebrew alphabet with a disproportionately large impact on verb tense and meaning with the corresponding controversy as to how it impacts our understanding of the text. It can imply ‘and’ indicating a continuation of activity or thought, or it can change an imperfect verb to perfect and vice versa, akin to making past tense future and vice versa.} as continuous narrative, that there is a creativity present in the narrative and in God’s actions. G1 and 2 are an account based on historical fact, not myth, using creativity to convey spiritual truth.

JD:  G1 gives the “big picture,” and G2 “drills down” to the unique relationship between God and Adam, and said that all of the components of a covenant relationship are there.

JW:  The two chapters are talking about function, order and sacred space. In G2 we don’t need to worry about days, as time is not communicated in the text. God is setting up His center of sacred space in the Garden and setting up the relationships between us and the ground, plants, animals and each other, and setting us up as priests in sacred space where in G1 we are made rulers.

Vibrant Dance 2: Walton: The Cosmic Temple Inauguration View of Genesis One

{RJW Note:  The fifth plenary session was by Dr. john Walton, Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College and Graduate School Wheaton, Illinois. Dr Walton handed out a one page summary, including a table laying out his outline of Genesis 1 to everyone, so I did not ask him for a copy of his talk text. Thus, today’s post is a merger of my notes and the handout, which is reproduced here in its entirety. }

The Handout:

Vibrant Dance 2011: Day 1 Recap

Today was the first of the two day conference on the Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science, Theology Edition:  Creation—Biblical Options. All of the presenters come from more of a theological or philosophical background rather than a science background, so it was a change for me. I plan to give a short recap of each day’s sessions and in future posts discuss each of the talks I attended, so that it can be delivered in blog-sized bites.

There were seven plenary sessions and a breakout session interspersed with times of worship, breaks and meals. The first, by Dr. Craig Blaising, Provost and Executive Vice President of Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, set the tone by establishing a framework for discussion in terms of generally accepted principles of Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) and understanding knowledge (epistemology). He also laid out the importance of Creation as a Christian doctrine and the key questions that tend to come up in debate.

Dominion versus Stewardship

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”                                  Genesis 1:27-28

I, and many contemporary Christians have interpreted the ‘dominion passage’ as to basically refer to the idea of good stewardship, that the harsh ruling connotation of the words was just that, modern connotations of a more pastoral intention by God.

A Christian colleague of mine in the biological sciences has been studying the original Hebrew of Genesis, in preparation for a book he’s writing. He presented some of his thoughts to our faculty group recently. I learned from him that in fact, the original Hebrew is correctly translated, connotations and all.

According to him, the word for subdue is kabash. Yes, in the sense of putting the kabash on an idea. It does mean subdue as in putting down an enemy or a rebellion. This has an even more profound implication:  that Creation is harsh and an enemy in need of being subdued. But wait, it gets better—God declares that this harsh, untamed Creation is good, and that humanity’s charge to tame it is very good!

This awareness of the Hebrew has rocked my image of God. If you’ve read this blog for very long, I have often commented that our definitions of the words ‘goodness,’ ‘holiness,’ and ‘righteousness’ are far too tame. Yet here again is another indication that God is no mere benevolent grandfather in the sky, but something far wilder, far more…, well more, than we can possibly imagine. He is no urbane metrosexual, but a living Being of Power, who demands we conform to His image, refusing to conform to ours, even delighting in shattering our views of Him because they are too small.

Then the word for rule (‘rule over the fish in the sea…”) is radah. This means to rule as a king. It has a royal connotation to it. In order to interpret it properly, we need to look at what God demanded of kings. Look up all of Psalm 72 on your own (homework), but here are the first seven verses:

Endow the king with your justice, O God,

   the royal son with your righteousness.

May he judge your people in righteousness,

   your afflicted ones with justice.

May the mountains bring prosperity to the people,

   the hills the fruit of righteousness.

May he defend the afflicted among the people

   and save the children of the needy;

   may he crush the oppressor.

May he endure as long as the sun,

   as long as the moon, through all generations.

May he be like rain falling on a mown field,

   like showers watering the earth.

In his days may the righteous flourish

   and prosperity abound till the moon is no more.

If this is indeed the kind of behaviour God expects from a king, then radah in Genesis 1:28 does convey the idea of lifting up, taming for better use, almost in the sense of bringing out the perfect gem hidden in the rough stone. Therefore, taken together, God’s commands for us to kabash and radah the Creation form a vastly richer picture of what our work on Earth is meant to be. It is no mere idyllic scene, neither is it merely survival of the fittest, but a great work, with meaning, purpose and reward.

{For a more thorough article on the Hebrew words, read this.}

As Christians, we need to stop making apologies for God as if He’s some quirky or misunderstood uncle. We need to understand what He says about Himself and get to know Him, proclaiming rightly all of His character. He says that He will offend people, that they will stumble over Him, and consequently set themselves over against Him.

But how can we give them the opportunity to make that choice in an informed manner if we ourselves don’t know Him? He is not a tame God. He commanded us to tame nature, and that He would tame us. Yet, instead we often try to have nature tame us (i.e. radical environmentalism) and then we try to tame God. That is the heart of paganism.

SDG

Gaskell vs. UK #2: The Louisville Courier-Journal

Several days ago, I did a post on Gaskell vs. The University of Kentucky, and now have the first update. The Louisville Courier-Journal (LC-J) ran a story Friday about the case.  There are apparently a number of disconnects between what the story says and Gaskell’s actual words. My primary source for Gaskell’s position is his online essay which the committee read.

The LC-J article reports that he gave talks to various campus religious groups across the country [1. true statement] and that he believes that the theory of evolution has “major flaws,” [2. not a fully accurate statement of either Gaskell’s words or beliefs] and implies that is the dominant topic of his talk [3. decidedly false]. What Gaskell actually states is, “It is true there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses, but the real problem with humanistic evolution is in the unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations.”

As 1. is true, there’s no point in commenting on it.

2. Perhaps “questions” would have been a better term for colloquial use than “problems,” but neither word, nor the context of his statement conveys the idea of “major flaws” (i.e. that the theory should be chucked as incorrect or wrong). Gaskell doesn’t even use the word “flaw.” In many areas, we use the term “problems” to indicate something that needs to be solved, rather than something that is incorrect. For instance, we will tell students to do the problems at the end of the chapter for homework, and no one interprets this as saying the chapter is incorrect. We try to solve innumerable problems in our research to refine and improve our explanatory models, theories and hypotheses. He is also careful to separate the scientific theory from the naturalistic philosophy commonly, but not necessarily, associated with it, and states that his primary "problem" is with the philosophy rather than the science.

{Note that this discussion is of what Gaskell did or did not say, not whether his statements are true. This is an important distinction for purposes of the case. He readily acknowledges in his essay the diversity of views out there.}

3. Regarding the LC-J article's implication that the talks focused on evolution, the above quoted sentence is the majority of what he says about evolution in the entire talk. In fact, he (with tongue in cheek) bemoans as an astronomer any time he has to talk about biology at all. The title of the essay is “Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation.” There is nothing about evolution in the title, and he only covers it in passing because Genesis 1 talks about the creation of life, so he’s obligated to at least mention the topic.

The LC-J article also mentions “he recommended students read theory critics in the intelligent-design {ID} movement.” This is only partially true. Gaskell’s purpose is to give an overview of the different perspectives out there and encourages readers to research all of them for themselves. This is the mark of an educator, not a demagogue. Furthermore, Gaskell specifically says that ID as a movement does not offer an interpretation of Genesis, but just asks if there is evidence for design in the universe by an intelligence, and is not about mechanism.

Later in the LC-J article it says, “But UK biologists said in their e-mails that evidence for evolution was so overwhelming that Gaskell had no scientific basis to raise questions about it.” Logic states (as Gaskell implies in his essay) that if there are no remaining questions about it, then why is it still a field of study?

The article also states, “Gaskell had given the talk to religious and other groups at campuses around the country, including one at UK in the 1990s.” According to Gaskell’s attorneys, this was an invited talk—with the invitation issued by the Physics and Astronomy Department after some department members had read the essay!

Finally, his attorneys also dispute the claim by UK that the reasons for passing over Gaskell included “a poor review from a previous supervisor,” saying the written review which the search committee had received actually rated Gaskell as “superior” and “superior-plus.”

Overall, apart from these issues, the article seems to be fairly balanced, but it does leave the impression that Dr. Gaskell is a religious extremist and it trumps his credibility as an astronomical scholar.

I’m sure as the February 8^th trial date approaches, media discussion will escalate. As significant events occur, I’ll post about them, but will not critique every document/article that comes out. If you are interested in seeing every jot and tittle, a Google search will provide a plethora of hits.

As always, do keep the Gaskells and their legal team in your prayers—for wisdom, peace, protection, and a fair hearing in the courts.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Not Just Origins

The first plenary on Wednesday was by Deborah Haarsma from Calvin College, on “Not Just Origins:  Engaging Science in the Life of Your Congregation through Creation Care, Worship and Education.” It was designed to give the audience take home ideas for applying science to the various ministries of the local church—outreach, worship, and discipleship. As Haarsma pointed out, science and faith intersect on more than origins. As stewards of Creation, what we learn about it through science, illuminated by the practice of our faith inspired by the Spirit, should impact how we take care of the parts of the world with which we have influence.

Creation Care:

Many Biblical commands have a scientific component: care for the poor, sick, young, old (i.e. “least of these”), species extinction, deforestation/agricultural issues, pollution, sea level rise, natural evil, AIDS, global access to health care resources, cloning, etc.

Many Christians, when faced with this laundry list, ask, ‘what can the church do?’ The first answer is ‘not everything.’ However, every one of these issues is complex and neither end of the political spectrum has ‘the answer.’ Politics and media love sound-bite solutions, but the church uniquely understands that human issues are extremely complex, and should be equipped to bring a compassionate voice to minister to multiple parties.

Take deforestation/agriculture for instance. Third world farmers are trying to improve their standard of living and would like to do so quickly so they can enjoy the benefits we now take for granted. It is not reasonable, much less compassionate for us as the first world to dictate to them environmental policy for sustainability and biodiversity. Their justified response is that who are we to talk—we already raped our landscape, and can afford to go back and fix things. They are just trying do to more than survive. What the developed world needs to do is to come alongside with solutions to accomplish both purposes and get our hands dirty with them to help lift them up in a way that preserves the beauty and biodiversity, potentially helping them to capitalize on their unique biodiversity rather than just copying what works somewhere else.

The first step for us as believers is of course, is to pray. Second, get educated on an issue, really educated. Too often we shoot off our mouths on topics we have only a 30 second news bite understanding of things and we react. It is appropriate to respond rather than react. Start by reading 2-3 books on a particular topic that is on your heart. Prayerfully read from different perspectives to get a sense of the various issues involved and different takes on them, without neglecting those outside of Christendom.

A second step is to partner with ministries of denominational groups who address science issues. For most issues, there is already someone working as Christ’s hands there. Don’t start from scratch; help multiply what they are doing.

Remember, Creation Care is the application of stewardship-a response could result in changes in lifestyle, not just a collection of ideas. Don’t make it political. By reading even one competent book on a subject will make you more informed than pretty much everyone else, yet it is still only one book. Humility with a teachable spirit is key here, too.

Worship:

Science and faith should not be primarily about controversy or apologetics. In fact, most Biblical references to the natural world are in the context of worship and understanding God’s character—the ‘sense of the divine’ we experience when we look at the natural world. Therefore, we should encourage Christians to enter all fields of science. As Kepler said, we get to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”

There some pitfalls Haarsma warned against. 1) Don’t make a sermon a science lesson. Instead, weave it into one’s preaching/teaching. Use science in illustrations. She gave the following example—when describing the Holy Spirit as breath, describe what happens in lungs when we breathe air. Also, nature is a revelation about God—i.e.-a supernova explosion as a demonstration of God’s power. We can use science to discuss loving the poor with appropriate technology. Focus on God. Use science to illustrate points.

Science stretches the imagination. Seeing the wonders of nature inspires worship. One site to use as a reference/for inspiration—www.seasonofcreation.com She also recommended www.biologos.org/blog/categories/worship.

Science itself speaks of nature in neutral language. Some scientists will use atheistic language, yet Christians will speak of nature as God’s creation. It helps to understand the vocabulary. Science and technology reveal parts of nature that we cannot detect with our unaided senses and illustrate God’s attributes even more dramatically. Haarsma offered the idea of using science illustration/terms in congregational prayer that worships God as Creator.

Ptifall #2: Scientific explanations do not replace God and conversely, do not worship the god-of-the-gaps—i.e.- praising God mainly for things that science can not explain. The danger here is that when a scientific explanation is found, faith is reduced/damaged. Instead, praise Him for all of Creation, both what science can and cannot explain currently.

Haarsma pointed to Psalm 104, which sees things occurring both ‘naturally’ and by the Hand of God, and what’s more, does so interchangeably. Above all, she begged repeatedly and emphatically, “Please, PLEASE, do not praise God for your scientific ignorance!” (Pitfall #3!)

Education:

Other ways to include science in congregational life include going on a nature walk after a church picnic and ending with a song of praise, host a star party after evening worship where a local astronomer can set up their telescope and show what is in that season’s sky, use scientific images in sanctuary banners, work with local health care resources, convert vacant lots near church to gardens/parks, and so on. 

Regardless, always connect activities back to Biblical principles. Showing an informed interest in science will help break down barriers to the Gospel. It can also help equip our youth to better hold on to their faith when in college science classes. It gives us more opportunities to let Christ’s light shine to the world and gives opportunities to praise God for the Glory displayed in nature. Of all people, it is the Bride of Christ who should be the best steward of Creation.

Haarsma concluded with the admonition from Micah 6:8—“Do justice, and love mercy.”

RJW note:  I have very much merged my thoughts and extrapolations with Haarsma’s in this post, more than in others. The nature of the topic and length made it a bit pedantic to keep them fully separate. One thing I do want to add is a strong caution that some of these areas are sufficiently controversial that sincere believers are deeply emotionally connected to different sides of an issue, and just bringing up some topics can trigger strong responses. I recommend before embarking on a science-inclusion campaign that church leadership spend several months preparing a congregation for this, through occasional messages, notes in bulletins, emails, etc. Even bringing the topic of science up can invoke reactions because of the strong anti-science bias even on some elder boards. This is not meant as a discouragement, but an encouragement of a critical area of ministry—moving God’s people from darkness to light, milk to solid food. There will likely be growing pains, so extravagant love and grace are needed.

Similarly, particularly in environmental related issues, there is much that is popular but scientifically uncertain or even disputed or debunked. As you are getting started, stick to principles rather than concrete recommendations and as you learn more, gradually shift. Science is dynamic, and some ‘discoveries’ made one day are shown the next to have significant holes. Think about how often the medical journals report something as healthy or dangerous only to have it reversed in the next study.

For example, one area of which I am highly skeptical is that of the CFL lightbulbs. My experience is they rarely last significantly longer than traditional bulbs. Also, their manufacturing is much more involved, taking more resources to make them, use much more hazardous materials (primarily mercury) which are disposal hazards, are typically made in parts of the world where manufacturing standards are not as environmentally friendly, which makes them more dangerous than incandescent bulbs for the manufacturing environment, and the price difference is not offsetting for the supposed benefit. It is important to consider the ‘cradle-to-grave’ impact of ‘green’ technology, not just the user’s impact. I have a lot of hope in the new LED light bulbs. They are cheaper, more versatile, simpler, and less hazardous. Their key drawback now is brightness. In time, this should be corrected. In the meantime, I’m stocking up on incandescent bulbs before they are banned in 2012. There are similar issues regarding the electric and hybrid cars. Start with awareness and principles, love and grace, glorifying God, and see where He leads on specifics.

SDG

Top of the World, or, Bottom of the Heap?

I was staying with a relative this weekend and today she was watching Fox, and Glenn Beck was on. He and two guests were discussing something about secularism versus Christianity. I didn’t have time to stop to hear what they said, but one thing I did catch was very interesting. On a chalkboard they had a pyramid split vertically down the middle. Going up the left side were a series of words, starting with “Earth” and ending with “Man” with various typed of plants and animals in between. It was a picture of the order of Creation in Genesis. Down the right side of the pyramid was the same list, but inverted, with “Earth” at the top and “Man” at the bottom, representing the secular, extreme environmentalist, view. (If you want to see the 3 part video in context, I found it through Google at http://michiganredneck.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/glenn-beck-let-there-be-stuff/ --I saw part 2 on TV.)

Beck’s point was that the two worldviews have an inverted view of the relative value of various parts of the natural world—Christians see humanity as the culmination of Creation and therefore of most worth, and the secular view sees humanity as the lowest factor and elevate the planet and animals as having more worth than humans, and therefore, why many positions held by secular environmentalists are seemingly anti-human.

I’m not a Beck disciple and his picture is way over-generalized and I only caught a few seconds of it. Aside from being an interesting, eye-catching graphic, it does remind me that different worldviews are different because they value things differently. (Boy, is that profound!) Academia is a microcosm of most of the worldviews on the planet, so we get a chance to explore them daily. Therefore, understanding them and finding points of commonality is a critical step in earning the right to be able to share yours. Paul did this in Athens very effectively (Acts 17).

Even in the inverted system Beck discussed, a point of commonality is the stewardship of the Creation. God created us last and most advanced because we were tasked with managing the place, which is one aspect of the secular environmentalist worldview. Starting there, we can discuss why this stewardship is important and how stewardship is a method of balancing needs, and not an all or nothing proposition.

What worldview is most dominant in your area? What are the points in common between it and your Christian worldview? Why do each value those commonalities? Where do they begin to differ and why?

SDG

PS- As I am posting this, I'm watching the video, and the guests seem pretty reasonable.

Is it Nature or Magic?

When God acts, what does it look like? Seriously, think through this question. This question is the real heart of the Creation/Evolution debate, and all too often both sides make the exact same mistake, and the fight begins.

Chew on this and discuss in the comment section for homework. Seriously.

SDG