Evolutionary Creation 10 (RJS)

Last updated on: January 11, 2011 at 11:03 am By RJS

We’ve been working through Denis O. Lamoureux’s book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution – a book that describes a way to move beyond the creation and evolutions debates. In Chapter 8 Dr. Lamoureux’s describes a Christian approach to human evolution proposing a way to reconcile scripture, Christian faith and doctrine, and what is known from science. The debates on science and faith hinge on issues that can be divided up into three basic categories (1) Sin and Death, (2) Sin and Accountability and (3) Atonement.

Mixed into the whole discussion is a view of scripture and the appropriate interpretation of scripture as the inspired word of God. The understanding of scripture is a serious issue, and I don’t want to minimize it, but I think it has become such a serious issue because of the impact a view of scripture can have on the more important theological questions. The inerrancy and infallibility of scripture has become a rallying cry because the alternative appears to be apostasy, denial of God, denial of the redeeming act of God in Jesus, reduction of Christian faith to demythologized universal moral platitudes and ‘social justice.’

The question for today then is a Christian approach to human evolution in the context of the message of faith contained in Gen 3, Rom 5-8 and 1 Cor 15 . Dr. Lamoureux proposes that the question of Adam and of the fall is incidental to the message of scripture in general and to the message of Paul in particular. It is incidental because it is part of an ancient understanding of origins. The true impact of Paul’s message is Christ looking forward, not his use of Adam or understanding of human origins.

Is it possible that Adam is incidental to the Christian story?

More importantly perhaps, is it possible that the fall is incidental to the Christian story?

What are the theological consequences?

(more…)

Evolutionary Creation 1 (RJS)

Last updated on: November 23, 2010 at 8:59 pm By RJS

I am going to begin a new series of posts today – one post every week or so – centered around Denis O. Lamoureux’s book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. Dr. Lamoureux is an Associate Professor of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College in the University of Alberta (UA) in Edmonton. He received his BS in 1976 from UA, a DDS from UA in 1978 and then changed directions – receiving his MDiv and Master of Christian Studies degrees from Regent College Vancouver in 1987 and his Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Theology–Science and Religion from University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto, in 1991. Returning once again to science he received a Ph.D. from UA in Oral Biology–Dental Development and Evolution. We need not agree with all of his conclusions as we work through the book – but he has the background to make it well worth reading and discussing. I have received several e-mails from readers who found his book very helpful and the publisher was kind enough to send a copy for consideration. For those who find the full book (400+ pages) somewhat daunting Dr. Lamoureux has condensed the book into a more accessible version (I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution). He also provides audio and slide summaries of each chapter of Evolutionary Creation online.

In the first chapter of his book Dr. Lamoureux puts forth a number of definitions and concepts to help discuss a Christian view of evolutionary creation. Everyone comes at this question from a historical context, and an understanding of the context helps to make sense of the situation. He begins by making an analogy:

The world of ideas is similar to the world of color. We appreciate that many topics are not simple black-and-white issues and that many shades of opinion and understanding exist. Yet in contrast to the world of color, the ability to discern the spectrum of ideas is based more on our education and life experience than on genetic predispositions. Categories are for the most part learned, and once they become part of our mindset, they act like glasses through which we “see” the world. (p. 1)

In the discussion of the issues of origins, especially human origins, there are learned category distinctions that color the conversation and conversation difficult at times. There are also very real issues that underlie some of these categories, and these must be dealt with – not dismissed using superficial category distinctions and labels.

Two of the first categories that Lamoureux brings up are evolution and Darwinism, moving from there into consideration of the categories of creation and concordism (the expectation of correspondence between scripture and reality). After the jump I will summarize the discussion of these four categories – but to set the stage:

What do the categories evolution, Darwinism, creation, and concordism bring to the discussion? What preconceptions color the discussion from your perspective?

(more…)

How Much History in Gen 1-3? (RJS)

Last updated on: June 28, 2014 at 8:26 am By RJS

This post is part 5 in a series on The Fall and Sin After Darwin. We’ve been looking at the essays in a book Theology After Darwin centered around a simple question: What are the implications for Christian theology if Darwin was right? In conjunction with this we are also looking at three articles in the recent theme issue of the ASA Journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (v. 62 no. 3 2010) Reading Genesis: The Historicity of Adam and Eve, Genomics, and Evolutionary Science. Before continuing on to discuss the second half of Dr. Schneider’s article I would like to move over to discuss the article by C. John Collins, Professor Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis Missouri. In his article “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters” Dr. Collins makes a case for a historical understanding of Adam and the Fall and suggests scenarios that could be consistent with an old earth and evolutionary biology. The historicity proposed by Dr. Collins stands in contrast to the literary understanding of Dr. Harlow, and his arguments will help frame some of the discussion of the Fall when we return to discuss the second part of Dr. Schneider’s article.

The arguments for Adam and Eve as historical people, first parents, through whom sin entered human experience are biblical and theological. Dr. Collins puts forth the position that the Fall is historical and uses this term as a shorthand:

To the extent that I use the terms myself, I employ them as a shorthand as well. I imply, not simply that humans are “sinful” (which is something we all can see), but that sinfulness was not part of our original make-up, and derives from some primal rebellion on the part of our first ancestors. (p. 148)

The Fall is a historical event, Genesis is history-like. While this does not mean that Genesis is “straight history,” there is a historical foundation. Collins thinks that the author intended to convey history in literary form.

The author was talking about what he thought were actual events, using rhetorical and literary techniques to shape the readers’ attitudes toward those events. (p. 149)

The bottom line: while we may not have a historical account of the fall, we do have an account of a historical fall. (A turn of phrase borrowed from Henri Blocher.)

Do you think that there is a historical core to the story of Genesis 1-11? How important is this historical core?

(more…)

Evangelicalism, One More Time 1

Last updated on: November 1, 2010 at 7:10 am By Scot McKnight

Evangelicalism is up for grabs. The evangelical coalition of the 1950s-1990s is behind us, the fissures in the movement are everywhere apparent, and the future of evangelicalism … well, I’m not a prophet. I don’t know what will happen, but I do have a sense of where we are and where we were, and it does not appear to me that the future will be like our past. That concerns me.

I want to do a series of three posts this week – M W F — on evangelicalism. I will discuss three themes: evangelicalism’s history and need for defense, evangelicalism’s biggest defenders sometimes create new legalisms, and evangelicalism’s core is a four-fold commitment to a coalition for mission.

Where is evangelicalism headed? What do you think it will look like in 10 years?

Geoffrey Grogan, well-known to UK evangelicals but not known as well on this side of the water, though he’s published plenty and has taught in the USA, recently sent me his newest book: The Faith Once Entrusted to the Saints: Engaging with Issues and Trends in Evangelical Theology. He sent me the manuscript when he was working on it and I couldn’t do it justice, but I was committed to reading it when it came out … and I have now done that. We’re not always on the same page, but we are in the same family.

What Grogan works on is the need for evangelicals to stick to their robust faith, and that means at times having to defend its ideas in the face of shifts and drifts. I agree with him, and so I want to begin on this note: Evangelicalism, in the 1980s and 1990s developed a theological superficiality, and claiming a robust evangelical theology is very important.

If you pointed to one evangelical theologian, who would it be? Who speaks for it best?

(more…)

Being Human After Darwin 1 (RJS)

Last updated on: September 28, 2010 at 8:32 am By RJS

I am slowly working through a series looking at the impact that the evidence for evolution has on our theology. This series is based on a book of essays, Theology After Darwin (available from amazon UK or, as pointed out by a commenter, a search of Abebooks.com on author = Berry and title = Theology After Darwin will yield a USA-based source for a new copy of the book at a reasonable price (HT PB)). The question posed to the authors is quite simple, What are the implications for Christian theology if Darwin was right?

Nowhere do we find the question more central to our faith than in the subject of the essay by Francisco J. Ayala: Being Human After Darwin. David Fergusson, at the end of the chapter we discussed in the last Tuesday, suggested that a biblical understanding of human significance is challenged, perhaps, by the theory of evolution and common descent. If mankind is not the pinnacle and purpose of all creation, what are we? If we evolved in continuity with the animals what makes humans distinctive creatures? He commented briefly on the issue, but Dr. Ayala’s essay centers in on this question.

Francisco Ayala is the Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, a University Professor, a Professor of Philosophy, and a Professor of Logic and the Philosophy of Science at the University of California, Irvine. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences elected in 1980 and cited for his work in evolutionary biology. His research expertise is listed on the NAS website as evolution, genetics, population biology, origin of species, malaria, parasitic protozoa, and epidemiology. In more recent years he has also been active in the philosophy of science and the interaction between science and faith. In his essay on what it means to be human Dr. Ayala first presents a brief survey of the state of knowledge on human origins and then considers specifically the egg-to-adult transformation, the brain-to-mind transformation, and the ape-to-human transformation.

Mankind is a biological species that has evolved from other species that were not human. In order to understand human nature, we must know our biological make-up and whence we come, the story of our humble beginnings. (p. 89)

The three transformations above, says Dr. Ayala, “define the humanum, that which makes us specifically human.” He suggests that a consideration of these transformations “provide[s] a valid foundation for a religious view of humans as special creatures of God.” (p. 90)

(more…)

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)

Last updated on: April 7, 2014 at 6:01 pm By RJS

One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted:

…this reminds me of why I get annoyed so much by those who write on theology and evolution. It’s usually just deism and fluff, to be frank.

I’ve enjoyed reading through the comments and seeing some of the ideas shared by others. I firmly believe that this discussion on deism vs/compared to theism in natural theology should be given much more attention. Some of the scientist-theologians (Barbour, Polkinghorne come to mind) speak of a “theology of nature” instead of a natural theology, but in my mind, they haven’t really given us a good framework for how God acts in and through nature. It’s important to note that while natural theology is only one component of theology, it’s clearly a vital one today.

Justin developed these thoughts a bit more on his own blog A Biologists View of Science & Religion.

I think that this is an extremely important issue that should receive more attention by theologians (especially those that have training or a fairly deep understanding of evolutionary biology). The scientists like me or those at BioLogos have got to admit that our theology of evolution is weak. You cannot persuade Christians that evolution is not the enemy (and literal Creationism is bunk) if you don’t provide them with a meaningful and understandable natural theology alongside thescientific evidence.

What kind of discussion do you think we need to develop a workable theological understanding of evolution? What is the most significant issue?

(more…)

Did Jesus really walk on water? (RJS)

Last updated on: September 17, 2011 at 7:29 pm By RJS

Although I have often interacted here with posts on other blogs, I have not generally paid a great deal of attention to the comments on those other blogs. There was an interesting comment on Peter Enns’s post Jesus and the Sea though, a comment I think worth a response and some consideration and one that relates to many of the discussions we have had here of late. (Picture to the right: Sea of Galilee or Lake Kinneret on a rather calm day.)

Pete:

I like your writings here on the Bible; they’re the best thing on Biologos. But I want to ask you a tough question. Let me preface it. Your article here appears to argue a both/and position. That is, it appears to treat the events described both as real historical events and as events with deep symbolic resonance.

In the past, I have seen some theistic evolutionists act, well, kind of squirmy when such episodes are brought up. I remember watching one debate, where people kept asking a Protestant minister who was also a TE whether he though Jesus actually walked on the water. Every time the phrase “walked on the water” was used, the minister corrected people with “he walked on the SEA”, and went into a learned discourse about sea-symbolism in the Old Testament. By the end, no one could tell what the minister believed about the historicity of the story.

Of course, for the average Joe, if Jesus walked on the sea, he also walked on the water, so the historical question is the same. Let me put it this way. If we had an undamaged, clear videotape of the incident, and played it back today, what would we SEE?

I won’t be offended by any reasoned answer, but you can plead the 5th if you wish.

This post didn’t get many comments, although the conversation continued with several more along the same theme as this one. The issue came up in the comment stream on other later posts as well. It was suggested that there is a negative correlation between taking the position that theistic evolution is the best description of God’s method of creation method and a willingness to believe in the miracles related in scripture, in the Old Testament, and more importantly in the New Testament. TE, it was suggested, starts one on a slippery slope to deny any active work of God. Liberal rationalism here we come. So we ask again the question:

Did Jesus really walk on water?

(more…)

Did Jesus really walk on water? (RJS)

Last updated on: September 6, 2010 at 7:57 pm By RJS

Pete:

I like your writings here on the Bible; they’re the best thing on
Biologos. But I want to ask you a tough question. Let me preface it.

Your article here appears to argue a both/and position. That is, it
appears to treat the events described both as real historical events and
as events with deep symbolic resonance.

In the past, I have seen some theistic evolutionists act, well, kind
of squirmy when such episodes are brought up. I remember watching one
debate, where people kept asking a Protestant minister who was also a TE
whether he though Jesus actually walked on the water. Every time the
phrase “walked on the water” was used, the minister corrected people
with “he walked on the SEA”, and went into a learned discourse about
sea-symbolism in the Old Testament. By the end, no one could tell what
the minister believed about the historicity of the story.

Of course, for the average Joe, if Jesus walked on the sea, he also
walked on the water, so the historical question is the same. Let me put
it this way. If we had an undamaged, clear videotape of the incident,
and played it back today, what would we SEE?

I won’t be offended by any reasoned answer, but you can plead the 5th
if you wish.

Did Jesus really walk on water?

(more…)

Christ and the Dragons 1

Last updated on: June 23, 2010 at 5:40 am By Scot McKnight

James Emery White thinks evangelicalism is teetering over a precipice. Or, put in his words about the evangelical world he once knew, “that era of evangelical faith in America is now gone.” Perhaps that is fine, he adds. What he fears is that the “heart of evangelicalism itself is fading. And fading fast” (17). He points to what some are worried about: the loss of a shared social agenda or the fragmentation of the coalition of evangelicals during the Billy Graham era and the parachurch movement — an excellent and important observation. What such folks are missing, however, is the real issue: we are not in a post-evangelical America but in a post Christian world.

In your view, what are the most pressing issues facing evangelicalism today? Does it even matter? Has evangelicalism collapsed? Has it died and are we awaiting its official obituary? Or are there signs of renewed vigor and a new life?

So, in his new book, Christ Among the Dragons: Finding Our Way Through Cultural Challenges

, James Emery White focuses on four themes: truth and orthodoxy, cultural engagement and evangelism, community and civility, and the identity and character of the church. These, he thinks, are issues starting at the American evangelical church. Join us in this new series of posts about White’s book.

Why “dragons”? Because on ancient maps, when some mapmakers came to the borders of their knowledge, beyond which locations they didn’t know, they would write “Dragons be here.” This is a book about the borders of the Christian Church.

(more…)

What Do Scientists Really Think? 1 (RJS)

Last updated on: December 3, 2011 at 8:32 am By RJS

Today I am a lab rat – the little white kind, running through a maze, dissected for examination…

Elaine Howard Ecklund a sociologist at Rice University, with a husband on the faculty in Physics, has published a book Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think. The work reported in this book draws on an extensive survey of nearly 1700 professors at twenty one “elite” universities, in seven core disciplines (chemistry, physics, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology), augmented by detailed interviews with 275 of them. The book uses 10 representative anecdotal stories to flesh out and personalize the findings. I have spent all but three of the last 29 years, as graduate student, postdoc, and professor, at Universities included in Ecklund’s study. This book is well written, easy to read, and (speaking as a lab rat) she hits the target. I find nothing surprising, but much that provokes thought.

Strictly by the numbers:

But there is more to it than the numbers alone reflect. In Part I of the book Ecklund describes her findings on the personal faith of scientists – looking at three angles: the voice of science, the voice of faith, and spiritual entrepreneurs. While there is a reputation for secular atheism, “scientism,” and that view is represented, the reality is far more complex. As with any group there is a range of opinion and persuasion.

Do these numbers surprise you?

Do you think these numbers foreshadow changes for the general population in the future?

(more…)