Science and the Sacred

Every Friday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week's guest entry was written by Peter Enns. Enns is an evangelical Christian scholar and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament , which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture. This is the first of a multi-part series.

The Problem

It is no secret that developments in modern thought have challenged traditional notions of the Bible--not simply how to handle a verse here or there, but how to think of the Bible as a whole. To say, for example, that the Bible is inspired or the revealed word of God is fine, but it does not really address the situation at hand, for it leaves unaddressed how we are to think of inspiration and revelation in light of these recent challenges.

Two of these challenges crystallized in the nineteenth century and are still very much with us today. In biblical studies, texts from ancient cultures surrounding Israel began to be discovered and deciphered, and these texts bore striking similarities to foundational texts of the Old Testament. The first and still most famous of these discoveries are stories of creation and the flood from ancient Mesopotamia that are older than the biblical account. Although there are important differences between the Genesis stories and these other texts, it quickly became very hard to escape the conclusion that the authors of all of these texts--Genesis included--share a conceptual world about the nature of reality; they "breathed the same air."

In subsequent generations, as archaeological studies shed more light on the ancient Mesopotamian world, the Old Testament came to be seen more and more as reflecting the environments in which those writings were produced. An entire field of inquiry arose called "The Bible and the Ancient Near East," or similar designations. It was clear that the Old Testament could be profitably set in its ancient settings, and doing so would yield a deeper understanding of the Bible and its world, even if it challenged some traditional views. This is not to say that the Old Testament is "just like" other ancient writings or could be understood merely on the basis of these comparisons. No two writings from antiquity can be so closely equated, and certainly the Old Testament has many distinctive marks. But the pressure point was the striking similarities.

It is beyond any reasonable debate that the various writings of the Old Testament reflect the ancient contexts in which they were written. The interconnectedness of the Bible and the ancient world can be both confirming of Evangelical instincts regarding the Bible, but also presents very important challenges concerning the uniqueness and historical content of the Old Testament, Genesis 1-11 being a particularly famous example. However one may think through the specifics of these challenges, the more basic point should not be lost: any move to articulate very important concepts like inspiration and revelation cannot blissfully ignore the circumstance described above, but rather must account squarely with the "ancient near eastern way" God chose to speak.

A second challenge to traditional notions of the Bible in the nineteenth century is well known to readers of this blog: Darwin and evolution. Here we have a way of looking at human origins that was persuasive to scientists, spread quickly, and, in tandem with advances in geology from the previous century, called into serious question whether Genesis 1-11--especially creation, the flood, and age of the earth--has any historical value whatsoever.

It was a tough century for Christians. Challenges were coming from the halls of academic inquiry, both biblical studies and scientific disciplines. For traditional thinking about the Bible, the dominoes were unraveling down the slippery slope, so to speak. And judging by the persistent resistance offered by conservative scholars during the latter half of the nineteenth century (particularly at Princeton Theological Seminary), the threat was very real indeed.

It is not at all an exaggeration to say that, for many, "attacking" the Bible in this way was nothing less than an "attack" on the gospel itself. It is fair to say that Fundamentalism and by extension Evangelicalism were born out of this conflict between older views and new discoveries. In my opinion, even though some of the dust has settled, the nineteenth century is a blow from which Evangelicalism has yet to recover--a point demonstrated by the very existence of the BioLogos project.

The work before Evangelicals is essentially one of synthesis. How can we (1) speak of the Bible as God's word while also (2) facing with integrity things like archaeological discoveries and advances in scientific knowledge of the world? This is an important, even vital, question to consider, for apologetic reasons as well as encouraging the faithful. How can we talk about God and the Bible now, in view of these circumstances?

I would like to suggest that a very helpful way of talking about the Bible that can account for the present challenges is what I call an incarnational model, where the nature of the Bible is understood on analogy with the person of Christ. As Christ is both completely divine and human, the Bible is a book that is both authored by God and by human beings. This has important implications for how we read the Bible, indeed, for what we expect from it.

In my next post I will define more clearly what an incarnational model is before we begin looking at specifics.

When I consider your heavens,
       the work of your fingers,
       the moon and the stars,
       which you have set in place,

what is man that you are mindful of him,
       the son of man that you care for him?

Psalms 8:3-4

As modern science reminds us just how big this universe is, the same question arises: "What is man?" And as we turn our telescopes to the skies and learn more about them, even more questions seem to arise.

We now understand how stars and galaxies are born and how they die. The heavens are not fixed, as we once believed, but they are expanding, growing, and changing. Stars are still being created even today. What do these new observations say about the Bible or about a Creator?

Certainly, our scientific inquiries raise some deep, trying questions, without easy answers. However, the words of Galileo, whose passion for the heavens led to revolutions for both science and religion, can offer us some closing insight:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

For more worship videos like the one shown above, be sure to visit Highway Video's website.

Share |

"God does not call us to a life of studying science -- he calls us to a life of following in Christ's footsteps. Hence we must be patient with each other to follow truth as we see it in Scripture. We must recognize that we will never reach the point where we all see Scripture the same way. Although you may be absolutely certain that God created gradually, this does not mean that you are somehow less obligated to love and care for someone who is equally certain that God created suddenly. We are one body and we must nurture and care for each other, all the more so when we think differently on some points.

[...] Christians who believe in gradual creation must not be made to feel like prodigal children anymore. By the same token, those who believe in gradual creation must not look down on those who hold to a sudden creation view, as though they are somehow less intelligent."

Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace With Science, page 233

For some of us, the shortening daylight hours and colder weather means more time to curl up with a good book in the evenings. For those looking for new books to read during the fall and winter months, BioLogos offers a selection of excellent books about the harmony of science and faith on our Web site BioLogos.org. Here's a sampling of the 37 titles that make up our "Recommended Books" section:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution by Denis O Lamoureux
"In this thought-provoking book, born-again Christian Denis O. Lamoureux argues that the God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolution--an ordained, sustained, and design-reflecting natural process. In other words, evolution is not the result of blind chance and our creation is not a mistake. Lamoureux challenges the popular assumption that God disclosed scientific facts in the opening chapters of Scripture thousands of years before their discovery by modern science." - Wipf and Stock Publishers

Every Monday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from one of The BioLogos Foundation's co-presidents: Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk.

The greatest joy of my life is being with family. This is especially true, of course, of my natural family, but it extends much more broadly than that. In my book, Coming to Peace With Science , I write about my return to evangelical Christianity after a departure caused in part by my views on evolution. What I missed most during those several years away was the joy of being with family. In those early years after my return, we would often sing a chorus, "I'm so glad I'm a part of the family of God." While we were singing, we'd just spontaneously wander around from person to person shaking hands and warmly smiling as we celebrated being a part of the same family. It was that longing for family that brought me back to the Church and caused me to stay even though I believed in evolution and most of them didn't. It made no difference. Thousands of miles from our natural family, we, my wife Joyce and I, together with our two daughters, had found a larger family; we had found a home.

Several weeks ago, I talked with Karl Giberson after he had visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky. As I asked him about the experience, I expected he would make some light-hearted remark about the dinosaurs with saddles or the vegetarian lions. Instead, I was struck with how much he loved the serene setting. It was almost like he felt at home there, and his thoughts turned to his own daughters and to his wife, Myrna, with whom he wished he could share the experience.

I had a similar experience last weekend when I visited a seminar put on by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), at John MacArthur's church in greater Los Angeles. I loved being there, and what I enjoyed most of all was the sense of being with family. After the daylong conference, friends of mine who attend this church invited me to their home along with about 50 guests to explain the scientific view of the creation story. My task was to explain the view that the earth was old and that God had created all life, including humans, through an evolutionary process. Even though I had never met most of these people before, I felt at home. I was with family.

They asked me to talk about the data that ran contrary to what they had heard throughout the day and they listened intently as I showed them the genetic evidence for evolution. They smiled with me at lighter moments, and they were as deeply moved as I was as we thought together about the richness and beauty of the story of Adam and Eve. In the end, they wrote their questions on cards and we had a meaningful discussion period. I loved their questions. They really wanted to understand and were especially concerned about the theological implications of the data I had just presented. They were skeptical about whether they could believe the science, largely because it seemed to them it would disrupt the theology upon which their lives had been grounded. They lovingly listened as we thought together about the theological implications. Throughout the evening, I never stopped feeling like I was with family--a warm and loving family.

The next morning I sat down over breakfast with my two friends who had only recently let go of their young earth position. It had not been easy for them, and was not easy for others I know who have recently made the shift. However now, with the process further along, they tell me it has greatly enriched their sense of awe for the beauty of creation and for the God who is responsible for it all. As I thought further about the preceding day and the delightful evening I had enjoyed so much, I concluded the following:

• People who hold the young earth perspective are not unintelligent. If it had been possible to do some sort of intelligence test on the group of 50 gathered in that home, it would have been similar to that which would typify the many scientific gatherings I have attended over the years.
• These are beautiful people whose lives reflect the glory of God.
• Since most of these people do not have a science background they have difficulty understanding why science should be considered anything more than an opinion about how things work.
• Their worldview is based upon a theology that is difficult to wrestle free from the young earth perspective. The questions they raise are not knee jerk reactions, they are important questions that we must be prepared to address. They are tied to things like the apostle Paul 's clear belief in a historical Adam in Romans 5 and the fact that God is reported to have said centuries later that He created heaven and earth in six days (Exodus 20:11). "Did God really say this, or not?" they ask. "Was Paul inspired to write something that was not really true?" they want to know.
• Some, perhaps many, have come to Christianity from lives that were previously very unfulfilling. They have found a safe haven among beautiful people who believe a certain way. They don't want to go back to their old lives and they fear that accepting evolution is a step back to where they used to be.
• Many are open to new ways of thinking. If the data is strong, they will thoughtfully consider it, but letting go will not be easy. Like me, they are convinced of the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Like me, they believe in a God who can and does supersede nature. Like me they take their theology very seriously. They will only let go of the old theology when the new one brings them to some place where they remain intellectually and spiritually fulfilled.

As the ICR seminar began last Saturday morning, Henry Morris III, the CEO of the organization, said that the real enemy of the church is not atheists, it is people like myself--people who had reached a compromise between the Bible and science. Despite his sentiment, I continued to feel at home there. As I listened to his message at the end of the day, I applauded with everyone else. He was preaching the gospel message that I believe too. In fact so powerful was his message that I felt like leading the way to a standing ovation...it was a beautiful message that had absolutely nothing to do with the age of the earth or the mechanism by which God had created humans. He might think people like me are the enemy, but I think of him as a brother who just doesn't understand how clear the data is.

My task, and the task of others like me, is to help members of the family who want to listen come to understand that whether God set up and maintains a process by which creation takes place gradually or whether God did it in an instant makes no difference. Sure, there will be some tweaking of theology so it is a little less subject to our very human misinterpretations. Sure, there will need to be some changes in how we understand scripture to bring it into a framework that is more consistent with how God intends to speak to us through scripture. The fact is that the day is coming--and I suspect it is not that far away-- when most in the Church will wonder why we ever struggled with this issue in God's family.

We'll get on with the task of that which matters most of all: providing a home for those who need a family--being the family of God, for those who want a home.

Every Friday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week's guest entry was written by David Opderbeck. Opderbeck is a professor of law at Seton Hall University School of...

"The Bible is not a book but a library, with various types of writing in it. There is much history, but there are also symbolic stories that convey truths so deep that only a story form could convey them. (That...

In his work Natural Theology, philosopher William Paley proposed his famous "watchmaker" argument for the existence to God. According to Paley, just as the intricate design of a watch implies a designer, so too the intricate design of the universe...

Many evangelicals do not seriously deal with evolution until their post-secondary education.  For some, coming face to face with the evidence for evolution can be a threatening and faith-shaking experience. For others, finding harmony between faith and evolution is natural...

Every Monday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from one of The BioLogos Foundation's co-presidents: Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Today's entry was written by Karl Giberson.Two curiously related things happened to me last month. The first was a...