Seminaries and Science

A lot of people are talking about the relation between science and theology lately. Questions about the nature of human persons, the relation between the body and soul, and the always contentious debates around “origins” are popping up with renewed fervor on blogs, in conferences, and in book publishing. Creation science, intelligent design or theistic evolution? How ought Christians think of Adam and Eve and “the Fall”? What’s the relation between divine providence, creation and natural suffering?

I approach these topics as a seminary professor who teaches theology and Christian Thought courses, including a course devoted to “Theology and Science.” I have discovered that our seminary students have had very little exposure to complex discussions of the relation between science and theology. They often come into seminary (as I did) with very little science background and often with only peripheral exposure to questions and issues around the intersection of science and religion. Some of them, having been raised in conservative Christian traditions, matriculate with the assumption that Christian faith and science don’t mix.

It is not exaggerating to say there is urgency about this issue; the urgency is related to the situation of the American church today. A consensus seems to have emerged: the American church is in a state of decline. Part of the reason for this decline is that church leaders are not equipping their congregants to intelligently engage challenging worldview issues (including, among others, theological, philosophical and ethical questions). A recent book by David Kinnaman,You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church…and Rethinking Faith (Baker, 2011), suggests that just over 60% of churched teenagers drop out of church after high school, often rejecting their faith altogether. One of the reasons for this, as his research shows, is a perceived “anti-science” attitude within the Church. Pastors, youth pastors, and other church leaders either ignore issues raised by science or they take an aggressive stance against it. Last year,  a group of Christian sociologists studied fifty “deconversion narratives” and published those findings. For a summary and analysis of that research, see Brad Wright’s post, “Why do Christians Leave the Faith? The Fundamental Importance of Apologetics.” Like Kinnaman, they discovered that a major reason for many of these deconversions was the lack of engagement within the church regarding complex intellectual issues, like the relation between faith and science. In the words of one former Baptist in the study: “Christianity is a disease; education is the cure.”

Traditionally, apologetics has been directed primarily to non-Christians (atheists, agnostics, or adherents of other major religions). But as Brad Wright also notes, another apologetic need is arising today within the church itself. This apologetic argues that the perceived forced choice between science and faith is a false dichotomy. But it is one that is perpetuated by many pastors, youth pastors and other leaders in conservative streams of Christianity. Seminaries need to engage with science on issues like “origins” because they need to equip pastors with a sophisticated worldview and a capacity for nuanced discourse around the intersection of biblical hermeneutics, theological anthropology, and scientific explanations of cosmic, terrestrial and human origins. In short, pastors need to be able to help parishioners who are convinced by the scientific consensus on origins to realize that they can accept this consensus while simultaneously affirming the Bible’s unique, divine authority as the inspired word of God. They can acknowledge that while science helps to explain “reality” at an empirical level, theology dives deeper, into the mystical and the metaphysical. As Galileo, citing Cardinal Baronius, famously said: the Bible was written to tell us how to go to heaven; not how the heavens go.” People should not feel forced to choose between either science or faith; either science or theology; either science or Scripture.

I was encouraged to read that Tim Keller, a noted conservative evangelical pastor and apologist, recently spoke out in favor of theistic evolution at Biologos-hosted conference called”Theology of Celebration.” Keller urged pastors to develop a compelling theological narrative that takes science into account. If pastors are going to do this well, it seems that seminaries need to be in the middle of the conversation.

 

 

  • Bryan Hersman

    I was a science child and a atheist, up until my 30′s when God used that very science to make his pursuit of me known. Then he used it again to make a way for me to see how Jesus really lived, what he said, how he died, and how he really rose again. I’d say that the 60% of teenagers leave the church may give all kinds poor excuses, but bottom line God has not, and may never, allow them to really see the light. I can easily see how faith and science go hand in hand now, it’s never been remotely a concern in my personal faith. I do enjoy watching atheists contort themselves trying to prove the absence of God when the very rocks they walk on cry out to their creator!

  • Doug Day

    Evolution must be addressed because public schools tell their students they are morons if they don’t believe science. Christian scientist have many answers why intelligent design works. Public colleges also work hard to destroy young people’s faith. There are many DVD’s that address the subject.

  • http://www.nearemmaus.com Brian LePort

    I think this is a great idea, assuming the seminaries find a professor who is fair and knows science. I would hate to sit through a semester of straw man arguments!

  • Pingback: Should Seminaries teach Science and Faith courses? You betcha | Unsettled Christianity

  • Paul Prins

    The biggest hurdle for pursing an apologetic for those already in the church is that for the synthesis of Faith and Science to occur it means our theological framework will have to adapt (origin, original sin, creation, our place within Gods creation, etc). In my experience there are few within the church to make this journey – even if the conclusion is a more unified sense of belief and worldview.

    As for the ID discussion, I personally find it lacking. We need to make space in the tent of Christendom for those believers, like myself, who accept evolution and passionately love their God.

  • Seth

    I guess I just have trouble with the terminology in a couple parts here. In particular the term “consensus.” Being published in textbooks doesn’t make something the consensus. There are many respected scientists who find the evidence for a Biblical account of creation to be solid. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to engage with science, but I also don’t think it makes much sense to engage with Science while already accepting what the so-called consensus espouses. I just think it gets to be tricky when we are more willing to reconsider what we believe the Bible is saying than what science textbooks are.

  • http://augustiniandemocrat.blogspot.com/ John W Brandkamp

    Kyle, thank you so much for this essay. As someone who also writes about and has many conversations about the intersection of faith and science with my fellow seminarians, this is a major issue that MUST be dealt with and dealt with soon. Basically, we need to manage a third way. A way between the two extremes of theological liberalism which accepts evolutionary biology/cosmology, but at the cost of historic orthodoxy, and much of conservative evangelicalism/fundamentalism, which adheres to theological orthodoxy, but at the expense scientific literacy.

    We need to establish an ecumenical evangelicalism which is both theologically orthodox, while affirming the goodness and soundness of the scientific enterprise, especially in the realms of biology, genetics and cosmology. We have promising voices out there like Pete Enns, Alister McGrath, Karl Giberson, Denis Alexander (my personal favorite), Francis Collins, and many more.

    Currently, what we’re mostly seeing is scientists explaining the legitimacy of the modern scientific truth claims to lay people in the church as well as pastors and even some theologians. What we need next are for first class theologians with pastoral sensibilities learning these sciences sufficiently enough and then writing about how best we can integrate this into our theological grid/paradigm. Will the paradigm change? Almost certainly it will. Is that scary? Of course it is. Can it be done faithfully? It has in the past and it will again.

    God is faithful that way.

  • Pingback: Around the Blogosphere (06.01.2012)! « Near Emmaus