Vibrant Dance 2: Duncan: Six 24-Hour Days, A Reformed View

{RJW Note: The final plenary position paper was given by J. Ligon Duncan, the Senior Minister at First Presbyterian Church, Jackson Mississippi, and Distinguished Visiting Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. For whatever reason, I didn’t ask him at the conference for his notes. I emailed him a couple of days ago, and have not yet heard back, so tonight’s summary will be exclusively from the notes I took during the talk. I apologize for not getting the something from him at the time. Starting tomorrow, coverage will be over the breakout sessions and panel discussions.}

All Christians must be committed to some form of realism—correspondence and coherence and revelation are all important. Inerrancy is also important. We do have different ways of knowing things, and it is important to be aware of them and their reliability. We need to recognize that ontology precedes epistemology. {The fact that we exist takes precedence over how we know it.} For example, “I know my wife knows me” but sometimes it is hard to explain why I know.

It is impossible not to admit the presence of supernaturalism in Genesis 1, but it doesn’t mean the functions of this world are not capable of study by human activity. In other words, just because I say God sent a thunderstorm, doesn’t mean it is wrong to study meteorology. The fact of God’s action in the world as either an ultimate cause or even a specific one doesn’t preclude the fact of the orderly laws of nature, which we are able to study and have a responsibility to study.

Vibrant Dance 2011: Day 2 Recap

Day 1 of the symposium was each of the speakers giving an in-depth introduction to their position. Day 2 was multiple opportunities for them to interact with each other in panel discussions. Each discussion had a main topic, but like any series of such discussions with the same players, the topics flowed back and forth across sessions.

The first panel topic was the strength and tensions of each interpretation. Topics ranged from whether Genesis 1 and 2 were one or two accounts of Creation to views of “myth” and the effects of hellenization on the Scriptures we have today to whether Creation is ex nihilo (from nothing) to the importance of the age of the earth in the accounts. Secondly, each speaker had an uninterrupted chance to talk about the implications of their individual positions on the core Christian doctrines. This actually finished slightly early, as there was a lot of “What he said,” as most were in general agreement on the idea that the important point is that God created, and regardless of how one reads the Creation accounts, there is a largely uniform and uncontested series of theological lessons about God’s character, the nature of nature and humanity, and humanity’s relationships with the Creation and with God. Some speakers therefore used their time to address other or deeper issues.

Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science 2: Theology Edition

Starting next Friday, October 28 through the 29 at Sugar Creek Baptist Church in Houston, TX is the Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science Symposium, Theology Edition. The topic this year is Creation:  Biblical Options—A Gracious Dialogue. Details can be found at www.vibrantdance.org.

Last year, the conference was a combination of scientists and theologians talking primarily about “old-earth creationism” and “theistic evolution.” This year there is a panel of theologians discussion all three primary interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 (young earth, old earth and theistic evolution). From the flyer:

“Genesis 1 & 2:

                One Creation, different interpretations;

                Different interpretations, different tensions

                How does this affect the body of Christ?

                How does this impact you and yours?

The featured speakers are: Todd Beall, Craig Blaising, Walter Kaiser (from last year’s symposium), John Mark Reynolds, Bruce Waltke, John Walton (also from last year) and others.

If you are in the area, come! I will be blogging from the conference with more detailed posts to follow, just like last year, so check back often.

SDG

Young Earth/Old Earth

At today’s Christian faculty lunch, the topic of Science and Faith came up, particularly in the context of Genesis and the old earth/young earth debate.

My friend and colleague Sarah Salviander has started a ministry called Six Day Science, which I’ve written about before, and in spite of the appearance of the name, she is an old earth creationist. I asked her how things with that ministry were going and she was a little frustrated with the complete lack of response to email introductions she’d sent out to local pastors. We as a group sympathized, and shared that many pastors, not trained in science, tend to automatically take the young earth position. Furthermore, since many young earth creationists believe that is the only inerrant interpretation of Genesis, anyone holding a different view has a doctrinally weak view of Scripture. Consequently, many pastors try to insulate their congregations from those who hold different views, especially if that church has a school affiliated with it. This really helped her understand the dynamic involved.

Vibrant Dance: “The ‘That’ and ‘How’ of Creation"

After Andy Crouch’s talk, Hugh Ross from Reasons To Believe (reasons.org) gave his testimony, which can be found on his website. (If you were there, you understand the humor in that).

The next plenary session was by Ross Hastings of Regent College (and another chemist by training!) with the also incredibly long title, “The ‘That’ and ‘How’ of Creation:  Pastoral Perspectives on Deepening the Dialogue of Co-pilgrims Seeking the Celestial City.” (I tell you—these titles barely fit in the 140 character Twitter limit and need their own bit.ly!)

In short, his theme was explaining how to approach a theology of Creation. He said, “Christ redeems us to be in Creation.” Therefore, he posited, Christians should be in science and not run away from it. He reminded us that we all agree THAT God created, so let’s have grace in discussing HOW He created.

He suggested two theologies of creation that I will call T1 and T2. T1 is an ‘historic ecclesiastical confessional orthodoxy, and T2 is a reflection on theoretical science in light of T1. Yeah, that was too many polysyllabic seminary words for me too, but fortunately it became more clear as he continued.

He asked what is the “Christian theology of biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy,” etc? In other words, looking back at the theological statements made by many of the early scientists like Newton in their manuscripts, how did their understanding of God illuminate their science and vice versa? It has been so long since scientists felt the freedom to do so, that we can say that a Christian theology of science has reverted back to a state of infancy.

Hastings reminded us that the unity and catholicity of the Church is vital. {NB: in this blog, I capitalize “Church” when referring to the Body of Christ, all who have professed a saving faith in Christ’s redemptive acts of the cross and resurrection, not any particular organization, creed, structure, etc.} He also reminded us that all humans have faith commitments in life, even if ‘non-religious.’ I suppose you could say that one’s personal worldview is a fundamental expression of their faith commitments, even if someone would claim not to have a faith of any kind.

He then began a discussion that contrasted the scientific theory of evolution versus the closely partnered philosophy of evolutionism. (See my post “Define Your Terms!”) From that flowed his explanations of T1 and T2.

T1 states “that God created” is a theology of Creation.

T2 refers to “how” God created—the mechanism (whether young-earth, progressive creationism or theistic evolution)

T1 deals with issues such as:

• The aesthetics of the glory of Creation (that Creation was made beautiful, not merely functional)
• The distinction between God and Creation being separate entities versus monism (the pantheistic idea that God is part of creation or one with creation instead of a separate other)
• That Creation was unnecessary, but in fact an act of love by a Being wanting to increase the opportunities for love to be manifest
• That God is provident over the process of creation
• Contingent issues of creation (free will being a necessary factor)
• The doctrine of imago Dei (humans are created in the image of God)
• This involves three traits
• Relationality between persons
• That such persons are rational
• Therefore, they should be capable of ruling wisely and benevolently over Creation
• Also, it should allow the rise of human culture via inculturation without enculturation.
• {Some comments on modernity and postmodernity in this context which I didn’t clarify in my notes}
• A contrast between epistemology (things we learn through thinking and experience) versus tacit knowledge (things we know implicitly)
• A foundation for the ethics of science

T2, on the other hand deals with these issues on the front edge of the dialogue on origins:

• The interplay of various degrees of freedom of creation {I think this refers to multiple issues such as free will, fine tuning arguments and the like}
• Degree of divine intervention and interaction
• Arguments via analogy versus unificacy {saying ‘this is like’ versus ‘this is’, I believe}
• Interpretations of Genesis 1, 2 and other Biblical creation accounts
• The headship of the human race
• Death before the fall
• Priority of the Incarnation over Creation
• Clarifying inculturation versus enculturation
• Certainty on the mechanism
• Mission—how we go about fulfilling the Great Commission in light of the mutual illumination between science with faith

If Crouch’s talk was a primer on the attitude of discussion within the Church on science/faith issues, then Hastings’ was a primer on the ground rules and mechanics of the discussion, defining terms and setting boundaries for the issues. Very well thought out, and as you can tell from the holes in my notes, very information rich. (Audio of the main sessions is available for order at vibrantdance.org if you want to hear any of these talks for yourself. In a few months, they plan to have DVD’s of ALL sessions available so you can see the slides that go with the talks. Hopefully, these reports are whetting your appetite.)

SDG

Pan-Creationism

As I wrote my previous post, I realized it might be a good idea to reveal my view of origins. Trying to follow good journalistic practices, I have attempted to describe various views as a neutral third-party, but this can be confusing to readers who are trying to infer what I think about such a contentious issue.

I recently decided that I am, ultimately, a ‘Pan-Creationist.’ To wit, it all panned out and here we are. Before you go accusing me of copping-out, let me explain.

I believe firmly in the first five words of Genesis:  “In the beginning, God created.” After that, I WAS NOT THERE, so I don’t know.

I believe God is perfectly capable of creating the universe in six seconds, so six days isn’t a problem when it comes to His ability. Neither do I limit Him to six literal 24 hour days. It is a very interesting question, but to me it is not a doctrine on which I intend to stand or fall.

Dammit, Jim, I’m a chemist, not a Hebrew scholar, geologist, or biologist. I’ve never even taken a biochemistry course. Therefore, I do not have the technical expertise to comment with authority on the topic of origins, so I refuse to. That is not a cop-out, it is professional integrity.

I do not hold the Bible to the standards of the Journal of the American Chemical Society or similar. Given that scientific journals came thousands of years after Scripture, I don’t see modern scientific standards as being backwards compatible with ancient Hebrew literature.

As a layman who has studied the Bible for over 25 years, and as a PhD scientist who understands the scientific method and sees it as a valid and powerful method for studying the natural world, I lean at this point in the direction of progressive creation. That is, that the six days of Genesis 1 are periods of time, and creation occurred over billions of years. However, I am still open to new data and new interpretations of both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. I find intriguing arguments in most of the various camps from the young earthers to the theistic evolutionists, but have not found a compelling set of arguments to place me firmly at a defined position. My experience tells me that the truth of hazy things often lies somewhere between the extreme views, so I tend to gravitate there while waiting for new info.

Part of the issue goes back to my theme of agent-mechanism dichotomy. Science, as a tool of studying the natural universe is able to offer extremely limited insight on things supernatural. Therefore, I have to rely on more than science to determine if the agent of creation is God, naturalistic forces, or some other unknown force. My assessment of all the data I have, including personal experience, is that God does exist. Historical sciences like paleogeology, astronomy and evolutionary biology have the substantial limitations of not being repeatable, with no living eyewitnesses or written documents (reliable or otherwise). Thus, interpretation of the data relies on key assumptions that apparently competent professionals disagree on, largely based on whether they assume the supernatural can even exist or not. This makes definitive mechanistic determinations difficult, but not impossible.

In summary, did God do it? Yes. How? I look forward to seeing the better than blu-ray version when I reach Glory. Til then, it’s an open question.

SDG

Harry Who-dini?, or, The Problem of Expectation

Thanks for the great ideas and follow up questions! How many times have you read/heard stories about folks who lose their faith because their expectations weren’t met? In the movie, “Expelled,” about the conflict between faith and science, several noted atheist scientists commented that they lost their faith due to various combinations of personal tragedy and seeing naturalistic explanations offer an alternative to “Biblical” ones.

I suggest that both Believers and Naturalists have made errors in their expectations on Divine behaviour, and when those expectations do not appear to be met, it has caused bad theology and/or loss of faith. It seems that a lot of folks expect that if God acts, it will be obviously 'miraculous.' 

The Naturalists tend to say, 'because there is a naturalistic explanation, God couldn't have done it.' The Christians say, 'because God did it, it can't be ordinary.' Both views are illogical. The Naturalistic problem can be explained by this analogy--just because you know how to get out of a straightjacket does not mean Houdini didn't do it. The Christian problem is a form of shortsightedness--everything God does needs to be supernatural, and so they don't realize that creating nature in the first place was supernatural.

Ultimately, this leads to the conflagration of two very separate issues (and there are some who don't want to see them separated): "Where did the universe come from?" (ie- what/who is the agent of the Big Bang, et al.) and "What is the mechanism or chain of events between the Big Bang and now?" One is primarily a philosophical problem to which science can offer insight, and one is primarily a historical/scientific problem to which philosophy can offer insight. To the extent that the two can be separated, progress can be made fairly amicably. Keeping them tangled, in my opinion, is what keeps the fight so bitter.

One reason I argue for maintaining a theistically friendly worldview in science is that it keeps more possibilities open when interpreting data--let's assume for a moment that neither God nor mindless physical processes created the universe, but some third agent of whom we have not yet conceived. If your innate worldview assumes there is no supernatural, OR that the universe HAD to have been created by God, then your reading of the data is limited by that worldview. If, however, you are able to keep things a little more objective--"I don't believe in the supernatural, but I'll allow for the possibility of it in my model" and conversely, "I believe in some form of divine creation, but I'll allow for other possibilities," then you are taking the blinders off, and can let the data speak more clearly for itself.

We humans like simple explanations, so we make our theories fairly simple, at least at the beginning—it either must be special creation as literally spelled out in the Bible, OR, it is a completely mindless natural variation of genetic code and environmental factors. It tends to take a lot of difficulty to come up with a theory that satisfactorily resolves the paradoxes and lets us overcome our biases.

SDG