Recently in Science and Faith Category

We began a discussion Tuesday on the real and perceived barriers to the acceptance of  an evolutionary mechanism of creation amongst evangelical theologians.  The basis for our discussion is a recent survey by Bruce Waltke (or here), an Old Testament scholar, author of a Genesis commentary and other books. The results of his survey are available here: Waltke Scholarly Essay.  

Waltke has a few conclusions and a few suggestions. These are well worth considering in some depth. The presentation that follows below is a paraphrase - not a quote from the white paper. The material is reorganized around three main themes according to my thinking at this time.

First - The caricature of evangelicalism as demanding Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a gross oversimplification Some 46% of the evangelical theologians surveyed are comfortable with evolutionary creation. More than half are comfortable with some form of old earth creation, evolutionary or progressive. Many have nuanced and carefully considered views. The same general trend is found in other surveys as well.  But it is a deep divide, and in some respects the division increases the heatedness of the discussion.

Like many evangelical OT scholars, Waltke sees a truth in Genesis that is goes beyond literal historicity.  Reflecting on the first barrier and the 44% who found the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 to be a barrier to acceptance of evolutionary creation Waltke notes:

The first barrier can be lowered, I suggest, by recognizing the two levels of literature: the historical story level and the interpretive, creative plot level. On the story level the accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are historical; on the plot level they are creative representations of the historical reality.

[He uses an illustration of a glass half full of water, half full of air and continues] ... the additional creative element expresses truth beyond the historical reality. Similarly, the accounts of creation are based on real history, but presented creatively, using the form of ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies.

This is a big question for many of us these days.

What are the barriers to the acceptance of evolution amongst evangelicals? Can we (or should we) dismantle the "Great Wall" and overcome these barriers?

Biologos has planned a working group symposium (exclusive and invitation only or I would have it on my calendar as a must) to look at just this issue.  The workshop will bring together 15 leading scientists, 15 leading pastors and 15 leading theologians to explore this issue.  Tim Keller, Francis Collins, and Alister McGrath are among the "names" involved.

This is a critical conversation as we move forward - although I am convinced of both an old earth and an evolutionary mechanism of creation, this is not the end of the story.  The theological ramifications must be considered thoughtfully, prayerfully - and with pastoral sensitivity. We must have conversation amongst sisters and brothers - fellow believers.

As part of the preparation for this workshop Bruce Waltke (or here), Old Testament scholar, author of a Genesis commentary and other books, was commissioned to write a white paper identifying barriers for the typical evangelical theologians to accepting the possibility of creation by means of an evolutionary process.  The results of his research are available here: Waltke Scholarly Essay.  The results of his survey provide the focus for the discussion I would like to have today (and Thursday).

[We've added the captcha text because we were bombarded by a spammer Monday. We hope the captcha text will disappear with the spammer soon.]

Last week I posted a question by a reader asking about categories of biblical literature and their "wooden historicity". There was another aspect to the comment though, and another question well worth consideration.

The original comment continued...

Speaking of that RJS, this reminds me of something that you've said before in response to my question on why you believe a certain thing to be the case. Your response, on occasion, has been to say that this is what has been handed down in Christian tradition, from the early church on. But, following our discussion here, surely the early church and much of Christian tradition thought the weather was directly, and in real-time, controlled by God. So if we so easily question that assumption now, why not others? The tradition argument alone seems rather weak in that regard.

This leads to the question for today.

What role does tradition play in our interpretation of scripture and understanding of the faith?

(The picture above is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, the traditional site of the crucifixion and burial. We visited fall 2001 - when the lines were rather short.)

A "spam storm": of a hundred comments an hour or more requires the catcha back on for a time. Bear with us and join the conversation. (Copy a long comment before posting, so you won't lose the thought if the system times out or you type the captcha wrong.)

This is the fourth in a series of posts looking at the implications of the fact that we are fully embodied beings created in the image of God.  We have body and soul - but these are not separable entities. (The third, on Science and Christian Virtue, contains links to the first two on Science and Sin.)

I will get back to NT Wright and his development of the idea of Christian Virtue, but today I would like to focus on Scot's book Fasting: The Ancient Practices. I don't want to review  the book (which is excellent) here, but use it as a focus point for what it means to think of humans as "organic unities" (a term I picked up from Scot's book).

Here is how Scot introduces the idea in connection with fasting:

The thesis of this work is simple: a unified perception of body, soul, spirit, and mind creates a spirituality that includes the body. For this kind of body image, fasting is natural. Fasting is the body talking what the Spirit yearns, what the soul longs for, and what the mind knows to be true. It is body talk - not the body simply talking for the spirit, for the mind, or for the soul in some symbolic way, but for the person, the whole person, to express herself or himself completely. Fasting is one way you and I bring our entire selves into complete expression. The Bible, because it advocates clearly that the person - heart, soul, mind, spirit, body - is embodied as a unity, assumes that fasting as body talk is inevitable. (p. 11)

The core idea here - that a unified perception of body, soul, spirit, and mind creates a spirituality that includes the body - has profound implications for worship, for spirituality (including fasting), and for discipleship. For one thing, discipleship should lead us concern for the bodily well being of others.  The command to love God is not an issue for intellectual assent, but a command for whole life transformation; loving others is not cerebral  empathy - but a matter requiring concrete action.

This leads to the question I would like to ponder today.

What are the key ways that a unified perception of body, soul, spirit, and mind impact worship, spirituality, and discipleship? 

Or - to put it another way (thanks Scot):

Where are you seeing dualism in Christian worship, in spirituality and in discipleship? What does dualism look like?

Scientists in Ethiopia have found a 4.4 million year old human predecessor that promises to upend long-held notions of what the common ancestor of African apes and humans looked like, how it lived, and how much both lineages have evolved since diverging.

The species, called Ardipithecus ramidus, is one million years older than "Lucy," the famous partial female skeleton of a hominid that lived 3.2 million years ago and was previously the closest scientists had come to finding the common ancestor of apes and humans. Modern genetic analysis suggests that the lineages of chimpanzees and Homo sapiens diverged more than 6 million years ago.