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.
8 comments:
The first progressive step forward is to be honest, not in terms of speaking the truth but in terms of accepting reality for what it is. Your proposed approach that we hold on to faith makes the assumption that faith is the exclusive domain of religious people, as if only people who claim to believe in God have faith. That is a self-serving definition of faith that carries no echo within the Bible or in reality. All men operate on faith. Paul was not wrong when he declared that each man was given the measure of faith. There can be no progressive dialogue if continue to insist that faith belongs only to the religious or, and this is even more egregious, that the Creator has "chosen people." To believe in Creation is to believe that all men belong to the Creator and he has no need to choose any among them. If the Creator does not own all men then He could not have created all men.
(As an aside: I just looked down and noted that the word verification for my comment is "derisin." Add and O and we get derision.)
I am speaking as a Christian. So "hold on to faith" refers to my faith, or more generally, Christian faith. In doing so, I am not denying other sorts of faith, only affirming mine. That is the context of the whole discussion.
But that's precisely the problem. We cannot conduct this discussion by ourselves. We have to engage everyone and use language that is generally acceptable. In your comment faith is used synonymously with philosophy, I would think. This is not the way we generally use it when we say that we accept things by faith.
All knowledge comes from the Creator and it just seems that both religionists and professional Christians have not accurately interpreted the information.
I beg to differ. By its very nature, this discussion is one among Christians. There are other discussions to be had with others, to be sure, but Christians have to first clarify among ourselves what our story is, and simultaneously, but separately, we can speak to others about our evolving story. Not all family talk is relevant, or of interest, to friends who are not in the family. Not that we exclude them, they can listen in if they like, bit it is not primarily a conversation of interest to them. That's my two-cent's worth.
Why would the conversation not be of importance to them. We are not discussing the origins of Christianity. We are discussing the origins of the human family, and last I checked they are members. In any event, truth should not be tailored for the audience. Sooner or later we will have to include them in the discussion, unless the church proves itself to be irrelevant first.
While we have the patient under general anesthesia it would be wise to perform every procedure that may be needed.
Christianity is 2000 years old. Adventism is less than 300 years old. Why is it necessary that our evaluation of evolutionary theory should be tied to the tenets of those two systems. If we are willing to admit that Christians and Adventists could be wrong on origins why can we not also admit that they could be wrong on what they claim about the Creator. It was this unwillingness to admit that it could be wrong that forced the church into conflict with Galileo. If one cannot be wrong then one cannot be right.
Ooops!
Why is it necessary that our evaluation of evolutionary theory should be tied to the tenets of those two systems?
Hmm, I like this. I am quite interested in hearing more on how the church deals with this. Good Writing professor!
Post a Comment