Although BioLogos and Reasons to Believe (or more accurately those Christians affiliated with these organizations) have similar views of divine action, there are significant disagreements when it comes to evolution. Chapter 7 of Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos begins to address the question of evolution explicitly. Darrel Falk presents his view, representative of BioLogos, while Fazale (Fuz) Rana presents the view of Reasons to Believe. Ted Cabal, Professor of Christian Apologetics at Southern, moderates the discussion.

Ted opens the chapter by asking Darrel and Fuz three questions. (1) How do you define evolution? (2) How convincing do you find the evidence for common descent? And (3) Does acceptance of biological evolution necessarily entail rejection of design?  These are great questions to start the conversation. Darrel and Fuz have slightly different definitions of evolution, they disagree on the evidence for common descent, but neither finds that biological evolution rules design out of the picture. Fuz, however, does think evolution raises important questions about design. More on this below.

Darrel Falk defines evolution as descent with modification. He quotes a UC Berkeley website to elaborate on this. (p. 124, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02)

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

Although scientists and others often move beyond science to assert that evolution disproves God, Darrel points out that there is nothing in this definition that necessarily removes God from the picture. The mechanisms of evolution include natural selection at the individual level, genetic drift, and survival of populations – even if at high cost to some individuals.  Macroevolution and microevolution operate according to the same principles.

Fuz Rana looks at five kinds of evolution – microevolution, speciation, and microbial evolution are, in his words, noncontroversial. There is ample evidence that these processes have happened and are happening today. The traits of a species can change in response to external pressures. Darrel mentions lactose tolerance in humans. Such changes represents microevolution. Speciation occurs when one species gives rise to two or more sister species – different species of finches, for example. Microbial evolution includes such developments as antibiotic resistance or the ability to digest synthetic fabrics. Fuz notes that “microbial evolution is not surprising given the large microbial population sizes.” (p. 131)

Fuz finds far less support for two additional kinds of evolution – chemical evolution (i.e. abiogenesis and the origin of life) and macroevolution (the origin of life’s major groups from a common ancestor). With respect to the first, Darrel responds, and I agree, that questions surrounding the origin of life fall outside the scope of biological evolution. Evolution, descent with modification, describes the progression in the diversity of life from a common ancestor. Darrel and Fuz disagree quite strongly when it comes to macroevolution. Although significant questions remain, Darrel finds the evidence convincing while Fuz does not.

The arguments advanced by Fuz are worth looking at more closely.

Before digging into the scientific evidence he begins by outlining a few philosophical and theological concerns with evolution.  First, from his debates with atheists he notes that “to make a case for a Creator and the Christian faith, it is incumbent on us to (1) distinguish our models from those that are materialistic and (2) identify places where God has intervened in life’s history. If we cannot, it is hard to convince skeptics that a Creator exists.” (p. 129) Second, he feels that common descent disagrees with the biblical accounts of creation. The active verbs in Genesis 1 and 2 “imply that God took a direct and personal role and did not just oversee a process.” (p. 129) Finally, there is the question of Adam and Eve. Because descent with modification is a population level process, it calls into question the existence of a primordial couple, ancestors of the entire human race. “Giving up the historicity of Adam and Eve as humanity’s sole progenitors has wide-ranging implications for key theological doctrines.” (p. 130)

The question of Adam and Eve is one we’ve wrestled with in a number of posts – looking at arguments from a wide range of people. I am not convinced that Fuz is right about the theological importance of Adam and Eve as humanity’s sole progenitors. I find his philosophical argument centered on the apologetic values of a scientific case for a Creator more troubling.  It seems to me that this leads to Christian faith built on the wrong foundation.

When Fuz digs into the scientific questions the philosophical and theological questions are always in the background. He argues that the fossil record and homologies (i.e. shared biological features) are not smoking guns in support of evolution because alternative explanations from a creation model perspective are also possible.  The modifications found in the fossil record can be viewed as the progressive work of a Creator. Homologies are simply manifestations of a common blueprint to achieve the desired goal. He also argues that punctuation in the fossil record (e.g. the Cambrian Explosion) and convergence (similar structures evolving multiple times) present significant problems for macroevolution.

I find neither of his scientific arguments convincing.  There is nothing in evolutionary mechanism that requires a smooth, gradual progression in the diversification of life forms. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable to find “abrupt” (on an evolutionary time scale) changes when either a barrier in possibility is overcome or a specific macroscale event occurs. I like the analogy of water filling a reservoir – when a barrier is overcome the range of possibilities can increase dramatically and descent with modification will populate the world with organisms exploiting this new range of possibilities. For example, an exoskeleton, or legs, and lungs open up possibilities that are not available to sponges or fish. Likewise a catastrophic event (e.g. a massive meteorite impact event) can open up the opportunity for a new range of structures and forms.

Convergence as an argument against evolution surprised me. Simon Conway Morris (Life’s Solution) describes convergence in detail and suggests that this demonstrates how evolution can point to design and purpose. There are a limited number of ways that certain functions can be realized. He disagrees with Stephen Jay Gould that rewinding the tape of life would results in a world foreign to our eyes. Yes there would, of course, be differences. However the same general forms would evolve again, and there is every indication that something with the same capabilities possessed by humans would again appear.

On redirect Darrel suggests that the genetic evidence for common descent is stronger than either the fossil record or homologies. Fuz counters that the strongest evidence would be in the so-called junk regions of the genome, but there is as of yet no reason to conclude that the junk doesn’t serve some function.

The later chapters in the book will dig into more of the details and in redirect Fuz refers to some of the arguments to come in these chapters. We will have to wait to evaluate the full strength of his arguments against macroevolution and common descent.

For his part, Ted Cabal comes down where I suspect that many Christians will feel the most comfortable. He feels most comfortable with the position staked out by Fuz Rana. Some of the most significant reasons are biblical and theological rather than scientific. He concludes “But I’m grateful for honest dialogue with brothers like Darrel. One great day we’ll no longer need proficiency in intramural apologetics!” (p. 141) For my part, I am grateful for the honest dialogue of Fuz Rana and Ted Cabal who, along with Darrel, model the way in which these intramural issues should be dealt with. We are all serving the same Lord even if we all hold some views that will, eventually, be proven wrong.

Do you think that Fuz Rana and Reasons to Believe are correct about the apologetic importance of this discussion?

What do you see as the strongest argument for or against macroevolution as defined by Fuz Rana?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

My review of a fantastic new book: Matthew Croasmun, The Emergence of Sin: The Cosmic Tyrant in Romans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Sin in the Pauline letters seems to be more than the violation of a command and seems to take on systemic force. Christian theology’s doctrines of original sin and guilt are but one example of theological attempts to come to terms with lower case sins and upper case Sin as a tyrant. In Matthew Croasmun’s recently published dissertation, The Emergence of Sin, a series of proposals are made that provide innovative solutions to all the above and more.

Croasmun establishes both the contours and parameters of the discussion in chapter one, which sorts out scholarship more or less into the individual or psychological (R. Bultmann), cosmic or mythological (E. Käsemann), and the systemic view of liberation theologians (E. Tamez). His terms are “sin came through sinning” (4), standing under definite dualism’s lordships (11), and sinful institutions (15). Croasmun’s contention is not that these elements are not each present, for they are, but that they can’t explain enough. Sin, what is it? Personification or a hyper reality? Is the individual sinning paradigm sufficient for the cosmology and anthropology at work? Is not Sin experienced as something outside and inside, as some kind of cosmic tyrant? What happens then to cosmology and anthropology? “We would prefer a reading that can hold together both sides of the contradiction, about which Bultmann and Käsemann more or less choose sides: that is, that human agents are subject to a power, Sin, that constrains their freedom to act; and that they are nevertheless responsible for their sin. Liberationist readers move us in the direction of being able to hold these two “sides” of the debate in tension, though not without introducing their own difficulties and limitations” (15). Whether it is social or cosmic forces, the systemic theory of Sin acting upon humans offers promise in coming to terms with the Pauline presentations in Romans. How then can Sin be explained as an enslaving force or power? Are the structures simply consequences of individual sins or do they take on a power of their own? What happens then to cosmology and anthropology? What is a person, or what is an agent? Is Sin a person or agent? Sin, Romans 7:8, makes clear is some kind of agent acting upon the person in his or her attempt to observe Torah.

The singular contribution of The Emergence of Sin is Croasmun’s lengthy, accessible and paradigm-altering proposal that sin by the individual, Sin as a cosmological presence and Sin as a systemic can be explained best by emergence theory. In chapters two and three the author examines emergence theory and personhood by appealing to the physical and social sciences as well as philosophy, sociology and psychology. His concern is “trans-ordinal theory,” or the relationship of various levels and how one is caused or correlated with another. Emergence is “concerned with the appearance of higher-order properties at coordinating higher levels of complexity” (23). The “wetness” of water, beehives, memory and money each briefly illustrate emergence that appears to be both caused by lower order elements yet taking on something of a life of its own. Dualistic theories are on their way out as some kind of ontological monism becomes more and more the scientific orthodoxy. Reductionisms are emergentism’s primary challenge: that is, the thought that lower levels always explain higher levels. However, “explain” and “explain away” are not the same thing. The mind does not exist apart from the chemicals at work in the brain, yet the mind and its intentions do real work in the world (hence, something like emergence is better than dualism or reductionism).

The core to Croasmun’s explanation of emergence theory itself is the dialectical relationship of supervenience and downward causation. Supervenience is not as intuitively clear as downward causation: the former refers to a causal basis of higher properties from which they emerge while the latter contends that what emerges works back almost in cyclical fashion upon the supervenience base making it more of what it is. They feed on one another and form one another. I shall enter our topic now into the discussion: human agents sin and from these sins, Sin emerges and Sin as an Agent works back on humans to precipitate more sin and sinning. Sin is ontologically dependent for its existence on human sinning. Croasmun’s ability to think through various systems of thought comes into play in these two chapters, each of which both demonstrates and illustrates this interplay of supervenience and downward causation. For example, the mind supervenes on the brain but the mind is not reducible to brain. Mind, thus, is more than brain.

Importantly, the question becomes Is the Mind then something other than brain? Croasmun examines this dialectic with amazing dexterity in chemistry, biology, sociology, and then focuses on racism. Back to sins and Sin: “In this light, the conflict between Käsemann and more radical liberationists, on the one hand, and Bultmann and the Vatican, on the other, is entirely predictable: it is the conflict between dualists and reductionists. Those more committed to modernist frameworks (Bultmann and the Vatican in this case) adopt the reductionist view. Those more committed, largely for theological reasons, to the recovery or preservation of premodern frameworks (Käsemann, Gaventa, etc.) adopt a dualist view. Those less committed to modern or premodern Western frameworks (non-Western liberationists and postmodern Westerners) are inclined toward something that looks more emergent” (55).

What then of the person? Croasmun’s examination leads him to conclude that the separation of persons from other persons and the person from the organic cells of the body are not as tidy as often argued and that we are together enmeshed in a system. Furthermore, both “self” and “person” begin to take on new properties leading him to contend that an agent or person or self called Sin can emerge from its supervenience base and become an agent of downward causation on the sinner. The older terms like personification or mythology are now found to be inadequate categories once emergence theory and personhood are reformulated. “Both body and mind are internally composite and integrated externally with their environments, to the extent that the very use of the categories ‘internal’ and ‘external,’ and ‘individual’ and ‘environment,’ become problematic” (59). The reductionism of Bultmann then comes to an end. Nor do we need figurative language for Sin: it becomes a reality, not simply a way of speaking. It is, in other terms, a Self that exercises constraints on its supervenience base. Sin, the apostle Paul said, influences the human to sin. On emergent account, Sin is comprehensible as a genuine Self. Croasmun then turns this into a discussion of the organismic self (the body) and the subjective self (mind) and this turns into superorganisms (e.g., a bee hive), the larger emergent organism encompassing the others. When the system, the superorganism has a life of its own, for the sake of survival, the individual cooperates and preserves the superorganism. The human person then is not an isolated individual but a cog in a wheel, an organism in a superorganism. The individual cannot opt out of the system. A human is a “node in a network of multiple scales” (94). Perhaps the most stunning conclusion is this: “Either the social is real or the individual is not. Ontological individualism is incoherent” (96). Emergence theory best explains the Pauline language of humans as sinful agents and Sin as a cosmic tyrant. Thus, hamartia in Romans 5–8 is a “mythological person: that is, a superorganism with a group mind emergent from a complex network of individual human persons” (99).

Only at this point does Croasmun turn to Romans but he has given his secrets away: Sin exercises downward causation – encouragement to sin – upon human sinning selves, and sinning selves are the supervenient base for Sin as a superorganism. With aplomb Croasmun sorts out Greco-Roman contexts for understanding Pauline anthropology and hamartiology. The Body of Sin stands over against the Body of Christ, each a system unto itself, one for Death and one for Life. How then does emergence theory deal with Torah/law/Law? Law is the means by which Sin connects to the human, the supervenience base (128).

The fifth chapter (142-174) on “Sin, Gender, and Empire” took a surprising and (to me) unconvincing turn to explain sin as a mythological figure, Hamartia, in the context of Greco-Roman concerns with self-mastery, the latter theory in interaction with Stanley Stowers’ A Rereading of Romans. Sin, then, has a body sexed female and gendered feminine. If the overall theory at work was less than compelling, the details will continue to fascinate Romans scholars. If masculinity was control, femininity was lack of control; if the audience of Romans is out of control, and if that audience is under the control of Harmatia, then the behavior is feminine and Paul proposes a new kind of ironic if not deconstructive masculinity of slavery to God! Hamartia then acts as a hypermaculine controlling agent for evil. She may be an impossibility but she is also, for Croasmun, the goddess Roma herself. Filter her through emergence theory and you have a collective Self in her too. Add to Roma now the ancient women called tribas who have masculine passions for women … and it all gets tied together in this fascinating romp through ancient sexuality, gender, empire and theology. Hamartia then is a woman ruling over the passions of the Roman males who are then challenged by the Pauline insult. This may well, he suggests, be a kind of anti-empire criticism by way of insult. Thus, it’s a parody: “the tribadic dominion of Hamartia sounds not unlike the effeminate dominion of the Caesars”(166)! The effeminate Body of Christ then resolves the battle and leads to a new kind of mastery of the passions.

In what will be a favorite for those teaching this book as an effort to show that emergence theory really matters for modern realities, Croasmun suggests his account of an emergence theory of sins and Sin speaks into racism today, into capitalism, into The Network and The Market, but also into a fresh account of original sin and guilt as well as into youth violence. Croasmun’s book has more than enough contribution in his theory of emergence and sin as supervenient base with Sin’s downward causation. The adventure into the gendered body of Hamartia, Roma and tribas may well find a number of responses as well. I find his theory of Sin and emergence to be compelling as a way of putting together individual sins, Sin as a powerful force and Self, as well as Sin/sin as a collective systemic set of institutions. While he states that his method is not a typical historical critical examination, his practice approaches the typical explanation of Paul in his historically reconstructed context.

In his splendid brand new biography of Dallas Willard, Gary Moon in Becoming Dallas Willard: The Formation of a Philosopher, Teacher, and Christ Follower, Moon tells a story of Dallas Willard’s struggle to determine his future: preacher/pastor or professor?

He had been reared and nurtured and formed mostly at the feet of Southern Baptists but his gradual exposure to other voices — like C.S. Lewis and Charles Finney and Thomas a Kempis — had broadened his interests.

Including a growing, simmering, burning and explosive interest in philosophy and realism (GE Moore, E Husserl). Following some years at Tennessee Temple and some pastoring of small churches, he and Jane moved to Madison where Dallas eventually took a PhD in philosophy.

In his last year or so he was pastoring two Congregational churches and then he graduated and decisions pressed upon him: What to do? Pastor or Professor?

In my Open to the Spirit I have a chapter on God’s communicating with us (even today) through prophetic words/utterances, and so as I read this I wondered what you would say to this question: Is this an example of a prophetic word?

Dallas was in the throes of a dilemma. He had been standing at a fork in the road for over a year. Well, actually, he had been trying to take both paths at the same time.

Even as some of his favorite dishes of steaming food were being passed around the table and under his nose, his mind was far away.

His host and good friend, Earl Aldridge, noticed that Dallas was only present in body. “Where are you tonight?” Earl asked.

“Oh, excuse me. I didn’t realize I was lost in thought.”

“What’s on your mind?”

“Well, I simply cannot decide which way to go. I love being a pastor, and I love being a professor. How do you pick between two things you love?”

“Oh, that’s easy,” Earl said. And that brought Dallas fully back to the table, and also grabbed Jane’s attention.

“If you go to the church, the universities will be closed to you,” Earl said. “But if you go to the university, the churches will be open to you.”

Prophetic word?

Ten years ago, when I first started writing on science and faith, Intelligent Design was a hot topic. It was in the news and high on the agenda for many in my local church. Today it has slid into the background, occasionally mentioned, but there are often other fish to fry. Greg Cootsona devotes a case study in his recent book (Mere Science and Christian Faith: Bridging the Divide with Emerging Adults) to the topic of intelligent design but not more than this because it is not one of the major issues for the emerging adults in his target audience.

The discussion of Intelligent Design focus on philosophy and worldview rather than science. Several years ago I read a book, Intelligent Design Uncensored by William Dembski and Jonathan Witt. The one clear message from the book was that the motivation for Intelligent Design is not scientific, it is philosophical and theological. The opponent is philosophical naturalism. At the end of the book, summing up the arguments, Dembski and Witt write:

This book began with a question: Are the things of nature the product of mindless forces alone, or did creative reason play a role? The question is fundamental because so much hinges on it. Are humans worthy of dignity? Are they endowed with certain unalienable rights? If humans are the mindless accident of blind nature, entering and exiting the cosmic stage without audience, in a universe without plan or purpose, what right do we have to puff ourselves up and talk of human rights and human dignity, of meaning or value or love? In such a cosmos, love is but a function of the glands, honor and loyalty nothing more than instincts programmed into us by a blind process of random genetic variation and natural selection. Such a cosmos is ultimately meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

At the heart of this book is a conviction rooted in reason and evidence: the evidence of nature points away from such a pointless universe and toward a universe charged with the grandeur of a design most remarkable. (pp 153-154).

This is a sentiment with which I agree. I am a Christian because there is evidence within creation for a creator. The heavens declare the glory of God. The intricacy of a biological cell and the formation of a child likewise declare the glory of God.

The Intelligent Design movement pushed beyond this sense of awe and wonder declaring the glory of God to propose design as a scientific observable. Greg Cootsona notes that “[ID] asserts a specific mechanism that is detectable and through which certain handiwork can be proven.” (p. 102) He suggests several weaknesses in ID as a search from proof of a designer. Theologically it overlooks the majority of God’s creative power which occurs through secondary, intermediate, and natural causes. We don’t really gain anything by placing a premium on the presence of “gaps” where ‘natural’ explanations fail and thus the designer (God) shines through. “[W]e are designed in a sense for empathy, morality, and relationships. A statement about design cannot be tied with mathematical complexity or statistical improbability.” (p. 103)

Greg suggests three action steps when it comes to Intelligent Design (quoted from p. 103):

• Remember that though all Christians believe that God is an intelligent designer, not all subscribe to the particular paradigm of Intelligent Design.

This is an important point. our belief in God as an intelligent designer is not based on scientific evidence for design. It is based on self revelation, the relationship of God with his creation, testified to in experience, the church and in Scripture.

• ID has not been sustained scientifically. So be careful of promoting it. … At the same time it is worthwhile to engage those thinkers who are convinced by ID and find out their reasons why.

We do harm when promoting questionable science and also by shutting down comment without engaging the ideas. Michael Behe’s ideas on irreducible complexity are not holding up to examination – but the engagement has been profitable in a number of ways. It has also been valuable to wrestle with the philosophical and theological questions that have been raised.

• We need to be careful of seeking more from the book of nature than it offers. As far as the sciences can tell us, there is no empirically detectable proof for God’s creation or existence.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. It simply isn’t a question amenable to these methods of investigation and reasoning.

Is Intelligent Design still a question in your churches?

In what ways?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Intelligent design (ID) “is the theory that the universe is too complex a place to be accounted for by an appeal to natural selection and the random processes of evolution—that some kind of overarching intellect must have been at work in the design of the natural order.” Most today, so far as I read, would not be entirely comfortable with the idea of “random,” but Yes, that seems to be how ID is understood today. I quote David Steinmetz from Taking the Long View: Christian Theology in Historical Perspective, his wonderful collection of essays on a variety of topics.

ID is supposedly faith neutral but Steinmetz observes that it is held mostly by conservative Christians who put scientific stock in Genesis 1-2.

Christians have always brushed aside the notion that the generating, a random concatenation of miscellaneous atoms accidentally thrown together by no one in particular and serving no larger purpose than their own survival. The first article of the Christian creed could not be clearer: the world exists by the will of God. No intelligent designer, no world.

He says “less conservative Christians” are not against the “possibility of evolution.” Catholics have affirmed evolution as a tool of God. Others simply don’t buy stock in the scientific value of Genesis 1-2. He appeals all the way back to Origen. Origen found some historical “absurdities” in Genesis 1-2 (how could God not find Adam and Eve?) and so said the text is a “semblance of history.” Truth through fiction, Steinmetz concludes from Origen. Truth is truth.

God as Creator, yes. Reading a nonliteral texts as literal is a mark, so said Origen, of immaturity.

Can we know the Designer from the design of the world? Is this public knowledge? Thomas Aquinas thought so; Calvin said the human mind was distorted by the Fall.

In order to understand Calvin’s argument, it may be useful to distinguish three terms: (a) the natural knowledge of God, (b) natural theology, and (c) a theology of nature. Calvin asked whether human beings have a natural knowledge of God (to which he answered yes); whether they can arrange what they know from nature into an intelligible pattern known as natural theology (to which he answered no); and whether redeemed—and only redeemed human beings can construct a legitimate theology of nature by reclaiming nature as a useful source of the true knowledge of God (to which he again answered yes).

Steinmetz thinks there’s something of Calvin in ID. Plus, all humans have a knowledge of God or a sense that there is a God. Why then are so many so unresponsive to the world as a witness to God? He turns to Augustine and original sin. Thus, Augustine thought humans misuse their knowledge to their own ends. Calvin didn’t buy that; there’s more at work: the faculty of knowing was corrupted.

What fallen human beings can see are scattered sparks of truth, momentary flashes of illumination, and blurred pages from the book of nature. When sinners nevertheless try to construct out of these fragments a sound natural theology that points to the true God, they succeed only in assembling a picture of what Calvin called an idol, a deity who is not really God, only a cheap substitute for the real thing.

Minds renewed by the Spirit are not the same.

[So] the advocates of intelligent design cannot escape theology so easily. Whether they like it or not, what they have offered is a form of natural theology. Leaving God unnamed does not make their argument any less theological, especially when they claim that the elements of complex design they have observed in nature are present because of the activity of their unnamed intelligent designer.

Calvin then thinks ID is smuggling in its assumptions:

Calvin rejected out of hand the possibility (which Thomas allowed) of a successful natural theology. On his principles, advocates of intelligent design had reversed the proper order of knowing. People do not believe in an intelligent designer because they observe in nature the marks of intelligent design. Indeed, the opposite is true. People find intelligent design in the natural order, because they believe on other grounds in the existence of an intelligent designer.

The world is, as Calvin correctly argued, the theater of God’s glory. The heavens do declare the glory of God and the firmament does show forth God’s handiwork. Christians have no excuse not to celebrate that fact. The more intelligently, the better.

By Becky Almanza, Community Care Coordinator at the Highland Church of Christ

Why would you want to change them?

Fourteen years ago, my husband, Joe, was hired as the Community Minister at the Highland church. One of the main responsibilities he was given was to give church members a better understanding of the community and people in poverty. In addition to his 20+ years’ experience in community outreach and prison ministry at our previous church, Joe could tell you many stories of going to school hungry as a child and many times waking up in the family car to a cold, dark night sky. No stranger to the word poverty, I too, can remember being hungry and watching my mother take a whole chicken fryer and cut it into about 18 pieces in order to feed all thirteen of her children.

Shortly after our arrival at the Highland church, we were introduced to Ruby Payne’s, What Every Church Member Should Know About Poverty. As the Highland church began to engage in ministry to the poor through Freedom Fellowship, this book was our basic first step in guiding Highland church members.

The key concept from the book is the author’s understanding of the difference in social classes, what each class values and how each socio-economic class reasons and processes their life. While the book does not specifically address solutions to poverty, it does advocate that for churches to be successful with the poor, members with a middle or upper-class mind set, must understand the hidden rules of generational poverty, so that the shift can be more readily accepted.

Noticing the Hidden Rules

Payne writes, “For the transition to occur, both sets of rules must be openly acknowledged.” An awareness of the “hidden rules” will give you the “behind the actions” motives and why people, specifically low-income, do what they do. “Hidden rules govern so much of our immediate assessment of an individual and his/her capabilities. These are often the factors that keep an individual from moving upward in a career-or even getting the position in the first place.” (Payne and Ehlig, 1999). In the book, Payne and Ehlig go one step deeper and infer that churches have their own “hidden rules” or “bias” and these rules prevent us from making people in poverty feel welcomed in our pews.

What does an awareness and an understanding of the hidden rules look like? How can we, members of a church open our hearts and create a welcoming environment? It was towards the end of one of the class sessions on the book that someone asked two questions. The first was “Why can’t we just let them be who God created them to be?” followed by the second question, “Why would you want to change them?” Throughout the book, Payne and Ehlig keep reminding us that the “bottom line for those in poverty is entertainment and relationship.” And, I surmise that relationship is the key.

Most Sundays at Highland you will find Joe in his Celebrate Jesus Bible Class. The class is designed to help assimilate many of our Freedom and Grace Fellowship friends and neighbors regarding the Highland culture, as we walk with them in their physical and spiritual journey. In the class you will often encounter someone who is homeless, recently released from prison or maybe someone struggling with addiction. The main objective of the class is to help our friends and neighbors to know the value of relationship dynamics as a means of practicing shalom. Why? Because impactful changes can occur through cultivating and increasing their circle of influence.

Rich in Relationships

At our church, it is not uncommon for one or two of our Freedom friends to show up spontaneously at your house. They don’t show up with an ulterior motive, they just want to hang out and experience relationship. The Highland member who shared this story continues to express how much richer and changed he is through the relationship. Imagine being in the middle of the Sunday morning worship and you watch as your low-income neighbor gets up from his seat, walks across the entire 1400-seat auditorium, to intentionally give you hug. The Highland member who shared her story and experiences those intentional hugs continues to express how much richer and changed she is through the relationship. Every Wednesday at Freedom, our neighbors plan, organize and cook the weekly meal. I call it a meal, but instead, it should be called a feast! Why? Because the meal may consist of two or three main entrees, lots of various vegetables, a couple of different salads, some bread and of course a dessert. Like I said, it is a feast. But, at the end of the evening, anyone who wants, is able to take a plate of food home. If you look at it through the eyes of someone in poverty, you can never have enough because you know what it means to be hungry.

At Highland, the positive stories far outweigh the negative. I don’t think there is a church who has not experienced that neighbor who comes in every Sunday and asks you for some gas or food money. And every Sunday, I watch as members dig into their own pockets to meet that neighbor’s need. Payne’s book seems to indicate there is an us-and-them view of the poor. What would happen, if instead of digging into your pocketbook, you simply told that neighbor that you want to be his friend and continually asking for gas money hinders the relationship you want to build? Instead of an us-and them perspective, I suggest you take a teacher-teacher approach. I have learned that I too need to be resilience in the face of adversity by watching my homeless friend, who slept in her car for 3 weeks because the HUD office didn’t approve her new apartment. It is a teaching moment for me as well as my son as I watch my friends serve the Lord’s Supper with eagerness and joy.

If your church is to be successful in spreading the word to all people, your members must identify with those that are different from themselves and use that knowledge to reach out in a way that is meaningful. Our neighbors need to see how you value your family. Our neighbors need to see your concept of work and the role it plays in addressing poverty. Our neighbors need to see the necessity of savings goals and how important it is to provide for your children in the present and in the future. Every week, as the Community Care Coordinator (a fancy name for Benevolence Coordinator), I sit across people in poverty. I listen to their stories, their frustrations and yes, even their dreams. Sometimes I can help them and sometimes the answer is no. But, by extending friendship and support through their transitional process, there is hope that our neighbors can be empowered to set goals for themselves and work toward a positive outcome.

The poor will always be with us, and for the church, there lies the challenge. However, it is also a powerful opportunity to demonstrate the power of the Gospel.

It has become common to study the science of religion and as a result the science of theology. Religious practice is a social construct amenable to study in the context of sociology, anthropology, and evolutionary psychology. Presumably religion exists because it has some survival benefit for the human race. Religion/theology is a valid subject for scientific study, but to leave it at this misses a very important element of theology, whether Christian or not.

Ernest Rutherford (who discovered the “nucleus” in a famous experiment with alpha particles and gold foil and thus set the stage for the atomic theory of matter) famously  noted: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” (See here for more details on the attribution.) While many will take offense at this, there is an important truth here. Ultimately physics is a search for a grand unified theory of everything based on the principle that the natural world is comprehensible and describable. In a real sense it encompasses all other subfields of science unless we tack on a restrictive definition of physics. Chemistry, biology, and psychology, as examples, are aiming for coherent unified truth, not simply classification and local truth. In any event, science is not simply a collection of disjointed facts, the practice of science involves a quest for intelligibility in the material world.

What then is a theology of science? Tom McLeish explores this idea in the penultimate chapter of his book Faith & Wisdom in Science. This is where he has been headed all along and it is worth mulling over the ideas carefully in a couple of posts. In this first we will reflect on the concept of a theology of science and then move to dig deeper into details.

In Christian circles the analog to Rutherford’s quote is the idea that theology is the queen of the sciences. If science involves a quest for knowledge, a grand theory of everything, then theology is at the pinnacle as God is the source and center of everything that exists. More broadly, one’s worldview provides a grand unified theory of everything – thus the quest for knowledge must include or even begin with a metaphysical worldview. Thus, in some sense, theology is the queen of the sciences whether one is theist, spiritual, or atheist. We are in a quest for truth.

So as a Christian I can talk about a theology of science.  As Tom McLeish puts it:

A ‘theology of science’ generates a radical viewpoint, if a highly unfashionable one, but with the great advantage that it is self-consistent. The theological story that starts with a creating person needs to be able to speak about everything, if it is to speak about anything. In particular it can speak about the physical universe, and of human minds, and of the relationship between the two. It can speak of how that special story, the one we now call ‘science’, belongs within the larger theological narrative of creation, pain, and healing. It can also talk of what being a human in an inhuman universe means, and it can do so by referring to the categories of value and purpose that constitute its natural vocabulary. (p. 170)

 From my perspective, the idea of a theology of science is misused when it is applied to the subjugation of science to Scripture, or more accurately to a specific interpretation of Scripture. The concept of theology as the queen of the sciences doesn’t mean that we have to worry about a flat earth, a vault above, the age of the earth or universe, a geocentric solar system, or even the special creation or evolutionary diversification of life. A theology of science is grounded in a creator and in a value-laden story. This post began with a brief introduction to the science of theology (or religion). As McLeish goes on to point out, a ‘theology of science’ benefits my science as well as my theology.

We need just as much a theology of science as we do a science of theology. This is true whether or not one personally chooses to explore life from a theistic, atheistic, or agnostic point of view, although a theistic belief in God adds an urgent edge to the task. A project that employs an ‘of’ to conjoin science and theology rather than an ‘and’ works self-consistently with, and within, both activities. We need to know why we are doing science, not just in anthropological or neurological terms, but where science belongs in the stories we tell of our history, hopes, values, and ultimately of our purpose. Those are theological stories. (p. 171)

There is a meaning to the pursuit of science that meshes well with the story we find in Scripture, especially in the wisdom hymn of Job, in the Psalms, in Isaiah and Jeremiah, and in the various creation  passages. The study of God’s creation is a worthwhile pursuit, using God-given facilities of reason and helping to shape order out of chaos. Some of the chaos is in the unsatisfying piecemeal collection of facts. This is slowly being ordered into a coherent narrative demonstrating the ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’ as Eugene Wigner put it (see here).  We are called to wisdom and understanding.

Science and faith are not “non-overlapping magisteria” as suggested by Stephen Jay Gould. This is an inadequate view of the world because it separates the whole into two distinct pieces and thus eliminates the possibility of a grand unified theory of everything. Biology without chemistry and physics is a collection of facts. Chemistry without physics, the same. We understand the structure of the periodic table and the reactivity of the elements because we know physics (the concepts of mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum theory, statistical mechanics, relativity). We begin to understand the intricacies of the cell and of organisms because we know chemistry now applied to complex aggregations of molecular and material structures as well as the principles of physics. We understand the world through both the material processes active in the universe and through the story that connects those facts with value and purpose. As a Christian I see a grand story that frames the material processes we we seek to understand.

This is enough for one day. We will continue with McLeish’s discussion of a theology of science in the next post on the book.

Do you have a theology of science?

What does it mean to integrate theology and science?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

I am so excited to be able (finally) to announce this great great news, a colleague in the New Testament department at Northern!

Lisle, Ill.— March 18, 2018 — As part of Northern Seminary’s continuing expansion, veteran pastor/author/church planter Rev. Dr. Dennis R. Edwards will join the faculty in Fall 2018 as Associate Professor of New Testament.

Dennis is a prominent Evangelical Covenant pastor, most recently serving in Minneapolis. A native of Queens, New York, he has pastored in major metro areas including New York City and Washington, D.C.

“Dennis brings a pastor’s heart and a scholar’s mind to the significant work of theological education. I’m thrilled our students are going to have the opportunity to learn from someone who understands the daily rigors of pastoral life and the important work of biblical preaching and teaching,” said Northern’s President and Professor of Pastoral Theology and Preaching Bill Shiell.

New Testament students will benefit from his fresh perspective. According to Scot McKnight, Julius R. Mantey Chair of New Testament, “Dennis brings nearly 30 years of pastoral experience, a PhD in New Testament where he specialized in the letter of James, a splendid commentary on 1 Peter in the Story of God Bible Commentary, and the gift of prophetic teaching. Northern is not simply adding a new professor but leaping into a new order of seminary education.”

His training is broad and extensive. Dennis holds an M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and has done post-graduate studies in Theology at Fordham University. He holds a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., and has been on the adjunct faculty of Bethel Seminary, North Park Seminary, and St. Mary’s Ecumenical Institute (where he was a distinguished lecturer). He has pastored in urban settings and is committed to racial justice and compassionate ministries.

Dennis is eager to begin this new chapter of ministry. “It’s with excitement that I anticipate joining the Northern Seminary community on a full time basis. I am honored to bring my education, experience, and curiosity to the Northern team. Northern Seminary is an environment where the interchange of ideas and the sharing of experiences in the service of Jesus Christ leads to the formation of people who will make a lasting impact for good in the world.”

David Fitch, Betty R. Lindner Chair of Evangelical Theology, adds, “Dennis Edwards typifies what a Northern Seminary professor is: a premier biblical scholar, an experienced pastor/church planter and a national leader engaging the social moral issues facing the church today. I’m so glad to welcome Dennis to the faculty of Northern Seminary.”

Dennis and his wife Susan have established a loving family including their four children. Previously ordained in the Mennonite Church, and now the Evangelical Covenant Church, Dennis has been Senior Pastor of the Sanctuary in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Northern Seminary was founded in 1913 and continues to offer an educational context that is international, interracial, and intercultural. The Seminary educates students to lead the church and engage the world.

Uncle Mike’s Never Fail Bible Reading Plan, by Mike Glenn

For over eleven years, I was the teaching pastor of Kairos, a Tuesday night worship service for young adults at Brentwood Baptist Church. A lot of the young adults who came to Kairos were coming to their first experience of church and worship. Some of my favorite stories of my ministry come from these Tuesday nights.

And some of those stories include helping these young adults get over their fear of reading the Bible. Most of them didn’t have a Bible. Their parents had given them one when they were children, but that Bible was either back at home or long since lost. The first challenge was getting them a Bible.

So, here’s the first step in my NEVER FAIL READING plan: GET A BIBLE. Get a real Bible. You know, a real Bible with real paper pages that’s held together by leather or cloth binding. I know, you can get any number of Bible software packages and Bible apps, and these are fine; however, they can be overwhelming and distracting to beginners.

Just get a Bible—any Bible you’re comfortable with. I know scholars and theologians will argue over the best and most accurate translations, but for most of us, any of the usual translations will be fine. If it starts with Genesis and ends with Revelation, you can’t go wrong. Find one you are comfortable with and let it be your Bible.

Now, find a place and a time that will work for you most every day. No one time is going to perfect for all seven days of the week, but find a time and place—the same time and same place—where you can show up, and your body knows you’re about to start studying the Bible. We are creatures of habit, and by establishing that this is the place and time you study the Bible, your mind will prepare for studying when you begin to walk to your favorite chair. (For me, it’s my favorite chair. Your favorite place may be someplace else.)

Just find whatever place and time works for you and start showing up. That’s all. Now, here’s the good news: you’ve done better than most people by simply showing up. Most people INTEND to study their Bibles, but they never get to the place of even starting. You have shown yourself to be exceptional simply by showing up.

Now, for the hard part. Read the Bible. I want to remind you that we’re not going to read the whole Bible today. In fact, we probably won’t read the whole Bible this week. We’re going to be reading the Bible in one way or another for the rest of our lives. We’ll eventually get through it, but we’re in no rush. Some things, like a fine meal, need to be savored. Reading the Bible isn’t so much an effort to push through the text as it is a meal to be savored and experienced.

So, where do you start? Start with gospel of Mark. Mark was the first gospel written, and it’s a good way to understand the ministry and teachings of Jesus. Almost half of Mark (chapters 11-16) is about the last week of His earthly ministry. When you finish reading Mark, read it again. We only comprehend about 20% of the text the first time we read it. Read Mark until you almost know it from memory.

Read slowly. Remember we’re learning a life-long practice, not sprinting to the end of the book. When you come across a story or a verse that makes you stop and think, then stop reading and write in your journal. I’m old school on journaling, so use a paper journal and a good pen to write out your thoughts. There is something about writing longhand that engages your brain in a different way than typing things out on your computer. And if you’re worried about not having anything to say, don’t worry. Something happens when your pen hits the paper. You’ll find yourself writing things you hadn’t thought about in years. There’s a reason keeping a journal has been a highly regarded spiritual discipline for generations. The soul has a way of revealing itself in writing.

Write until you’re done. That may be 30 minutes or it may be five minutes. I’m really not interested in how long you stay in your Bible reading time. I’m more concerned with a) building a daily habit of Bible study and b) getting the Word off the pages of the Bible and into your head.

Here’s the thing about studying the Bible. Once you read the passage or story a couple of times, it stays with you. You’ll find yourself thinking about the passage while you wait on an elevator or while you’re stuck in traffic. You’ll find yourself retelling the passage to your friends during a casual conversation. In short, the Bible will become part of your life.

And that’s the whole point.

When you finish with Mark, read Matthew and Luke. Read them the same way—slowly. Then, read John. The reason you read John last is because he’s the poet of the group. He is concerned with showing what everything means. He doesn’t really care about history, so to fit his purpose or to show some important insight, he’ll purposely tell things out of order. For instance, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke Jesus cleansed the Temple on the first day of Holy Week. In John, it’s one of the first things Jesus does.

Why? Because, for John, the whole point of Jesus coming was to break down the barriers that keep us from God. John seems to be telling us that if we want to know anything about Jesus, then we need to view the entire ministry of Jesus through the lens of the Temple cleansing.

Don’t get hung up on how much you read or how fast you read. Focus on reading deeply. Christ has promised when we open His word, He’ll meet us in the pages of Scripture. How awesome to know when we open the Bible, we open the Bible in the presence of its Author. The conversations that follow promise to be life changing.