Science and the Sacred

On Coming to Peace in the Family of God

Monday November 16, 2009

Categories: Weekly Feature
conference booklet.jpg

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.

In my last posting I wrote that my greatest joy is being with family and how sentiment extends to the family of God, regardless of how individual members view creation. At that time, I had no idea that two weeks later, I would feel compelled to write again on the same theme. I knew there was a special event coming up, but what I didn't know was the extent to which the feelings I wrote about two weeks ago would be experienced to an even greater degree throughout this event.

I have just returned home from a workshop titled "In Search of a Theology of Celebration." In the history of North American evangelicalism, there has never been a meeting like this. Gathered together at the Harvard Club in New York City were about 55 leading evangelical pastors, theologians, scientists, and other scholars. We were also privileged to have a small number of lay observers, who were especially important in our informal reflections. We spent two days in worship, study, prayer, and fellowship.

The scientists likely all held the position that God has created life in a manner that is consistent with the findings of mainstream science. Many of the others in attendance were not sure what to think, but amazingly--given the schedules of people in leadership positions--they were willing to come from all over the country (and beyond) to spend two days helping us understand the theological and pastoral ramifications of the science which we are so convinced is true. They were so gracious, not just in how they helped to inform us about theology and pastoral care, but especially as they listened to us talk about science. We, the scientists, described the evidence for evolution and attempted to show why it is so important for the Church hear what mainstream biology has to say about creation. They listened, and we were deeply moved by the spirit with which they listened.

The meeting title, "In Search of a Theology of Celebration," reflects the fact that one thing we all have in common is a sense of awe at the beauty of creation. We all want to celebrate. We all worship the same Creator. There is a sense in which looking at nature through the tools of science makes us all a little like the shepherd, David, as he looked out at nature from his Hebrew hillside in the days before he became a king (see Psalm 19, for example). Like him we, three thousand years later, still find that the heavens declare the glory of God. We find that day after day that which we see through our microscopes pours forth speech, and night after night that which we explore with our telescopes displays knowledge. Truly there is no speech or language, no culture or era, where the voice of God, through nature, is not heard. And, just as David went on to say those millennia ago, we still find that, "the precepts of the Lord are right." They do give joy to the heart, and they do evoke a response of praise. Nature, especially as we explore it at the level of sophistication we are able to do today, draws us into worship. Hence, the theme for the workshop: the meeting was a celebration. We began each day in song, in reading Psalms together, and in prayer.

We then proceeded to consider a series of papers that focused on issues like the history of evangelicalism's conflict between faith and science. We discussed the biological data. We considered the barriers which evangelical theologians and parishioners face as they consider the implications of mainstream biology. We talked about how evangelicalism's approach to the science/faith issue has sometimes served as an artificial barrier that blocks some from entering the realm of faith, and we discussed the harm that is done by those who misuse science to try to advance their own atheistic philosophical agenda. Each of the white papers in which the discussion was grounded will go up on the BioLogos website once the papers have been edited and prepared for uploading so you too can think along with us.

As each day came to a close we considered the majesty and beauty of creation as we looked out through the Hubble telescope and we looked in through the marvelous tools that allow us to see the inner machinery of life's smallest structures.

The workshop came to a close with much discussion about next steps. We all acknowledged that it will not be easy and will not come quickly. We all admitted that we weren't sure yet how the evangelical church will eventually be shaped by the findings of 20th and 21st century science. But because of the fact that we are a single family, there was a sense in which it was almost beside the point. We are the church of Jesus Christ. We are bonded in Christ, not in a particular view of how to interpret scientific data, nor even in a particular view of how to interpret Scripture. We are a family. We are brothers and sisters, who live our lives in communication with the same Father. We all want nothing more than for our lives to bring glory to our Father.

The very last thing we did together was to sing a hymn that acknowledges that the Church is not grounded in the fickleness of human frailty. The Church has persevered since those days of its emergence in ancient Israel, not because of human ingenuity, but because it is undergirded by a Foundation with an eternal dimension. I have never heard a richer, more meaningfully sung rendition of "How Firm a Foundation", than the one I heard as the meeting came to a close. As you read three of the verses we sang together, I suggest you read them remembering we are members of a single family. True, this song applies to us as individuals, but as we live the Christian life, we are not meant to live it as individuals who are all alone. We are a family, a family rooted and grounded in a Foundation that will endure. As you read the following words, keep in mind that they poignantly apply to the Family, to the Church, just as they do to us as individuals.

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
You, who to Jesus for refuge have fled?
Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid;
I'll strengthen and help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.
The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I'll never, no never, no never forsake.

After singing this hymn in a firm voice of solidarity, we got ready to leave and we said our good-byes. My final memory in leaving the meeting room is looking across to the other side and seeing a biologist whom I deeply admire and a theologian I hold in the highest esteem warmly bidding one another farewell. The Church will endure not because of articulate words or persuasive arguments. The Church will endure because of what the Church is. It is the Body of Christ united in love. It is the Family of the eternal God.

Share |
Advertisement
Comments
Gordon J. Glover
November 17, 2009 5:09 PM
http://www.beyondthefirmament.com

Daniel,

Once again, you are batting 000.

"You are also dismissing the Biblical teachings about the origin of sin and the Fall." -- Wrong. I don't think the Bible teaches this any more than it teaches geocentricism or that mustard seeds are the smallest seed. Just because the Bible describes something a certain way doesn't mean the bible "teaches" the same. These primitive scientific models are used to convey ideas that are more important than the primitive science used to convey them. You can't dimiss a teaching that isn't there in the first place.

I'm starting to think this concept is too difficult for you to understand, because no matter time I or anybody else explains it to you, you still don't get it. And yet, you use the same logic to dismiss other instances of bible science where it suites you. Truly amazing.

"You are also dismissing all of the theology built upon these accounts – the rationale for the Messiah to correct what had been destroyed." -- Wrong again. Our sin and need for a savior is the point of the narrative. Not our biological origins. Would you accuse C.S. Lewis of dismissing scripture and theology? His thoughts on Adam and Eve and sin were no different than mine.

"For you, the present and ever-evolving scientific consensus represents greater certainty than Scripture." -- Hmm.. Let's review: one revelation was sealed up during the first century and the other keeps increasing as our ability to gather data increases. Do you still think epilepsy is cause by demons? Or does the ever-evolving medical consensus represent greater certain than Scriptur for you? As history shows time and time again, it is our increasing knowledge of natural revelation that sheds light on special revelation. Not the other way around.

"Therefore, you use it as a knife to cut away what isn’t satisfactory for you, against the warnings of Scripture (2 Cor. 10:4-5; Deut. 4:2; 12:42; Rev. 22:18-19)." -- As do you. As I've said time and time again, unless you believe the sun orbits a stationary earth, you have no credibility here. Your claims of "phenomenological immunity" against passages you don't like could just as well be used to set aside all instances of bible science since ancient science was based on the way things appeared.

There is a log in your eye, Daniel.

Daniel Mann
November 17, 2009 5:32 PM
http://www.MannsWrod.blogspot.com


Gordon,

This will be my final response to you. You repeat a lot of general and baseless charges both against me and Scripture – like geocentrism and flat-earth. Unless you provide specifics and cite verse, I can’t address them. Besides, this is becoming very boring, and I have better things to do.

Daniel Mann
November 17, 2009 5:36 PM

Darrell,

Your gentle words about unity conceal a sharpened dagger. You dismissively suggest I take a vacation to learn a bit more about evolution. This is equivalent to my telling you to take a vacation to read your Bible. I would suggest that instead you answer my substantive challenges.

Gordon J. Glover
November 18, 2009 8:25 AM
http://www.beyondthefirmament.com

"Unless you provide specifics and cite verse, I can’t address them."

I've given you a list of all 67 verses that refer to the relative motion between the earth and the heavenly bodies -- none of which make any reference to a heliocentric arrangement. I've given you many of the 35 passages that refer to the earth as flat, and the only thing that even comes close to being a reference to a spherical earth is one passage in Isaiah, which given it vagueness, is best understood in light of the other 35 passages which are clear (interpret scripture with scripture, right?).

Just as you refuse to consider the scientific evidence against your understanding of creation and instead pretend that it doesn't exist, you also refuse to consider even those passages of scripture that describe the cosmos in terms of ancient science -- and this despite your repeated claims to us that the Bible should always take precedence over modern science! If you do happen to acknowledge that a particular verse contains ancient (errant) science, you simply dismiss it as phenomenological, as if that makes it all better. But what you fail to realize is this: how do we know the authors intended a verse to be phenomenological when they were describing things according to the most up-to-date knowledge of the time in which they were written!

Incredible.

Instead of dealing with any of the data I've presented you from both general and special revelation, you pretend I don't give it to you. And when I call you out on your evasive moves, you whine about me being too harsh and uncharitable. You seem to be on some sort of crusade here, but how can you expect to accomplish anything when you don't have the foggiest idea of what it is you are so upset about? Even Knockgoats has invested the time necessary to understand much of the Bible and the basic tenants of the Christian faith as a prerequisite to his quest. If you feel that strongly against something, that's just what you do!

So you don't like the scientific consensus on origins because you think it is incompatible with Christian orthodoxy? -- we get that. And here we are finding ways to understand both nature and scripture so that there is no necessary conflict. And here you are, admitting that you know next to nothing about modern science, yet confident that all of those professional scientist (who are also believers) who contribute to this blog are missing something? How can you even know what we supposedly are missing if you don't even invest the mental capital necessary to understand our position and the evidence behind it?

As I've said before, I went through this same exercise about 4 years ago and realized that I had been mistaken all these years. Whether or not you come to that realization after a period of objective study is beside the point; you would at least be able to speak intelligently on the subject and have something new to offer rather than cutting and pasting the same objections on every new thread.

Thomas Jay Oord
November 18, 2009 3:37 PM

Darrel,

Thanks for this profound word of hope. We Evangelicals must learn to learn from one another -- across our disciplines and across our theological traditions. This conference deepens my hope.

Tom

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Science and the Sacred

About the Authors

The BioLogos Foundation
The BioLogos Foundation promotes the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, and seeks to harmonize these different perspectives.
» Posts by The BioLogos Foundation
Darrel Falk
Dr. Darrel Falk is Professor of Biology at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, where he has taught since 1988. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology (InterVarsity Press, Downer's Grove, Il
» Posts by Darrel Falk
Karl Giberson
Dr. Karl Giberson is an internationally known scholar of science-and-religion and one of America’s leading participants in the creation/evolution controversy. He is the author of four books, including, “Saving Darwin".
» Posts by Karl Giberson
Pete Enns
Peter Enns is an evangelical Christian scholar, author of several books and commentaries, and Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for BioLogos.
» Posts by Pete Enns
More »

About Science and the Sacred

Leaders of the BioLogos Foundation share insights on the latest ideas on science, faith, and their integration.

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.