Knowing the truth

The commentary to my Bible study for the day makes the case that truth is Absolute, not relative and cited John 14:6 in support. "I am the way the truth and the life", it says, quoting Jesus. I agree. As a theist I believe that God is an absolute entity, and as such what God knows is absolute truth. As a Christian I believe that Jesus is the human expression of God, and the only way to him. But what do I do with that? How can I know what God knows? How do I get around the cultural lens through which I see everything, even my understanding of the claims of Jesus, the Christ?

The argument for absolutes often accompanies some apologetic. It is often used as the basis for arguing that truth as I understand it must be the absolute variety. Thus it is only through Jesus, as I understand him, that salvation is possible. And it is only the truth as I believe it from scripture that can be the absolute truth. That makes me nervous. It places too much burden on my limited human perceptions. It lacks humility because it fails to acknowledge that my understanding may be limited by my human experience.

Yet, what is the point of truth being absolute if it has nothing to do with me? And why does Jesus give us a commission to teach others if we have nothing definitive to teach?

I suppose the answer lies in a balance between confident assurance in what we believe through our walk with Him, and a healthy respect for the journey that others are on. We should invite those not on any journey to savor ours. And to those on another journey, we can give testimony to the beauty of our journey, and invite them to test it as well. But do we have the right to insist that ours is the only legitimate journey? Can our belief be absolute? I think not.

Learning from Ted Kennedy

This week the airwaves are saturated with coverage of the life and death of Senator Edward Kennedy (D) of Massachussets, who died on Tuesday night. As I hear the many tributes to the life of the late Senator, I am drawn to a few conclusions.

First, human beings are complex. It is seldom possible to summarize a human life by simply saying "good" or "bad". Those who are conditioned by their political leanings to see him as the enemy can find many things to deplore about his life: his unabashed pro-choice stand on abortion, the hard-drinking, partying playboy image of his early career most clearly symbolized by expulsion from Harvard for cheating, the Chappaquidick tragedy and his failed marriage. Yet, even his political enemies have been lavish in their praise of him as an effective legislator, his devotion to his family and, most surprisingly, the genuine friendship many of them shared with him.

Second, redemption is possible. Had Senator Kennedy died in the auto accident in 1969, his legacy may easily have been characterized by cheating, overreaching ambition, and reckless selfishness. Yet, at some point he chose to make his position of wealth and privilege count for more than self-indulgence, and to become an effective senator. In doing so, rather than choosing to focus on prestigious areas such as foreign policy or finance, he chose to expend his energy and influence on advancing the good of others in issues like education, health-care, the disabled, and poverty. The result is a portfolio of legislative acomplishments unmatched in the 20th century. Click here for a good summary.

Third, even when we have strong convictions, it pays to reach out with respect to those with whom we disagree. His collaborations with Republican senators such as McCain, Hatch, and others were invaluable in securing the successful passage of landmark legislation.

Finally, people matter. Over and over again this week, one could hear testimony from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, newspeople and others, telling about when they were in distress, or ailing or bereaved, and the first call they got was from Ted Kennedy. Senator Hatch talked about losing his mother and being surprised and comforted to see Senator Kennedy turn up at the funeral in Utah.

And so, back to the first point. A cheating, adulterous, drunkard can also be the finest legislator of our time. People are complex indeed. But that should not surprise us. Reminds me of a certain Israelite king three millenia ago.

On protesting and violence

Someone needed to say it. E. J. Dionne says it well here.

A Missed Opportunity?

Today, in response to the roiling controversy at La Sierra University over the teaching of evolution, the President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Dr. Jan Paulsen, released a statement in which he pleaded with the church's educators to support the traditional position on origins. You can read it here.

One positive feature was the tone of the statement. At a time when there are calls for firings and strong action to enforce the status quo, Dr. Paulsen chose to take a conciliatory tone rather than an authoritarian one. That is refreshing. Paulsen also closed his statement by making a pastoral call for Adventist educators to affirm faith in their students. I resonate with that call. I believe that among the things what distinguish Christian from secular education is that irrespective of the discipline, the instructor must be sensitive to matters of faith, and display that sensitivity in the way in which he or she deals with the subject, with the student, and with the student's interaction with the discipline. That is not indoctrination. It is taking responsibility, not just for the student's initiation into the discipline, but for guiding the student's integration of the discipline into his or her belief system.

Yet, I thought Paulsen's statement failed to move the issue forward in productive ways. It essentially left us in the same troubled place. The statement began by urging that we stay close to scripture, then pointing to the currently accepted interpretation of the Genesis account of six literal days of creation. In so doing, Dr. Paulsen seemed to imply that the only way to be true to scripture is to accept the literal account. But he fails to allow for the fact that even a literal reading is an interpretation, and that we may not yet have the final word on the interpretation of Genesis. His statement that faith is "not subject to the findings of science" is, at best, puzzling. It is the findings of science, after all, that has caused us to adjust our interpretation of scripture regarding the shape of the earth and its relationship to the sun and other heavenly bodies. Science has caused us to classify a bat as a mammal rather than a bird (see Leviticus 11:13-19). Science helps us to understand that the sun may not have stood still in the literal sense in the time of Joshua (Joshua 10:12 -14). Our understanding of genetics helps us to adapt our understanding of how Jacob's goats may have become spotted (Genesis 30:27-29). So science certainly has a role in helping us understand what Scripture is saying.

That being the case, it seems to me that Paulsen has prematurely closed the door on any refinement of our understanding of Genesis. Yet, I am convinced that without a serious review of our understanding of Genesis in the light of science, we are left at an irresolvable impasse. Science is not static. Our understanding of scripture should not be either. The present controversy can be a catalyst for scientists and Bible scholars to embark on a mutually respectful search for fresh insights that can enrich our understanding of Scripture in the light of unfolding scientific discoveries. Such a search would not ignore the hard problems on both sides. It would face them and work on them with honestly and intellectual rigor.

This has never happened before in the Adventist church. The dialogue between science and scripture has heretofore been handicapped by an insistence on the part of the theologians that we already know the right answer, if only the scientists would somehow find what it takes to harmonize with scripture or otherwise ignore the facts. But that is not how science is done. Scientists, on the other hand have not always been open to hearing the serious theological problems that get in the way of an easy acceptance of scientific theory. Nor have they always appreciated the limitations of the scientific method in answering metaphysical questions. On both sides there have not always been the greatest respect for the scholarly integrity or spiritual honesty of the other. We need honest inquiry that does not prejudge the end product, and that carefully and respectfully hears all the sides.

Such an exercise will be slow and not likely to produce quick definitive answers. But such patient inquiry is precisely the sort of thing that the academy is designed to produce. It is what well-trained scientists, philosophers and theologians at LaSierra, Loma Linda, Andrews, Walla Walla, Southern, and all the other academic centers in the Adventist higher education fraternity should be encouraged to engage in. Paulsen's statement has short-circuited this process by prescribing the answer. In this regard, I fear it represents a missed opportunity.

A New Project

The Creation and Evolution controversy is threatening to become an issue again in the SDA church. The catalyst is a letter sent by Pastor David Asscherick to church leaders regarding the teaching of evolution at La Sierra University.  It is important because evolution has become the organizing principle in the teaching of science, not just biology, but psychology also.  And not only the life sciences but geology and  astronomy and astrophysics as well.  As a psychologist, I cannot avoid the growing influence of evolutionary theory in my own discipline, and its value as an organizing principle for understanding the empirical data in biological and cognitive psychology and neuroscience -- areas of particular interest to me.   Yet the basic tenets of evolutionary theory are in direct conflict with Christian and Adventist presuppositions.  And it is not just the literal word of Scripture that is in conflict.  Evolutionary theory places in question cardinal Christian doctrines such as the origin of sin,  and thus, the plan of salvation; and for Adventists, the Sabbath must stand on a different foundation. A dilated time period of salvation history also causes the second advent of Christ to lose its imminence. 

So what is the Christian to do? The easy answers are: (a) to abandon faith as a Christian and embrace the evolutionary framework as Truth; or (b) to deny the evidence of science and hold on to faith with the expectation that evolution would be proven false in the end.  I find the first option a hasty retreat that denies my personal religious experience as a Christian, and that gives to science a role as arbiter of ultimate things that it cannot fulfill.  The second option I find lacking intellectual integrity.  It is not honest to accept only the evidence that fits our beliefs and deny what does not fit because it happens to be uncomfortable. Further,  as a Christian I believe that our senses and our ability to think are gifts of God -- marred by sin, to be sure, but not obliterated.  To ignore the evidences of science and logic is to spurn God's gift.  

And so I suggest a third, more complex and difficult option.  It requires that we hold on to faith, yet seek a way of engagement and synthesis that currently does not exist.  This third way is the approach  suggested by Charles Scriven, President of Kettering College, in a thoughtful essay published online on the Spectrum Magazine site.  You may read it here.  Scriven lays out his own position on the issues.  While admitting its scientific power, he asserts what he sees as the philosophical limitations of evolutionary theory. But he also suggests that though the Bible clearly affirms that God is Creator, it may be less definitive regarding the time and means of creation than some suppose.  Then he suggests that both scientists and other thinkers within the church embark on a new approach to the issues, in the absence of "mutual disdain", as he put it, and with a deeper sense of humility.  

That seems like good advice, and probably the only way forward in our present situation.  Yet in an otherwise balanced article, Scriven let slip his own bias by referring to Asscherick's letter as "breathless fulmination". If this project is going to succeed, Scriven's call for the absense of mutual disdain would have to be scrupulously followed by all sides, as also his call for humility. Humility means an admission of our limitations, not just in what the methods of science can teach us, but also in our ability to interpret scripture.  To think Christianly is to admit that we are not God, that the Truth is always beyond our grasp, and that all of our attempts to know are limited by that fact.  But it is also to keep searching, in this spirit of humility and  in a sincere desire to understand those with whom we disagree, with the hope of coming closer to the One who is the Truth, and in so doing, to come closer to the Truth itself.  Let us begin.