Paula Kirby has suggested that it is, and that evolution is the stitch that unravels the sweater. But more of that toward the end of the post.

I put up a piece last Thursday looking at a phone survey of senior pastors performed by Barna, commissioned by BioLogos: Creation, Evolution, and US Pastors. One of the questions posed in the survey asked about concerns raised by evolution. Four concerns were considered. Theistic evolution …

1. undermines the authority of scripture.

2. views portions of the Bible as non-literal, like Genesis.

3. raises doubts about a historical Adam and Eve

4. raises questions about how and when death and sin entered the world.

The senior pastors/priests were asked if they found these to be a major concern, a minor concern, not a concern, or if they were unsure.

Which of these raise major concerns for you? Why?

The results are not terribly surprising. Most of those who hold to a Young Earth Creation find all of these to be a major concern. I find it a little surprising, however, that the percentages are slightly higher for the two questions that deal directly with scripture than for the questions about Adam and Eve and Sin and Death. Unlike those holding to YEC or PC, few of those who hold to theistic evolution (7%-13%), and only somewhat more who are uncertain how God created (20%-27%), find any of these to be a major concern.

To refresh your memory, should you need it, the definitions for the categories used in the plot are:

YEC: Young Earth Creation. Believe that God created life in its present form in six 24 hour days. Assert that the earth is less than 10000 years old. Absolutely certain of these perspectives.

Lean YEC: All others who believe that God created life in its present form in six 24 hour days, but who express qualified uncertainty or who doubt “young” age of the earth.

All PC: Progressive creation. Believe that God created life in its present form over a period of time, but not via evolution or who embrace an old earth view but express qualified uncertainty.

All TE: Theistic evolution. Believe God created life, used a natural process like evolution. Express the belief that natural selection can explain the rise of new species. This also includes all others who embrace the idea that God used a natural process to bring about life in its present form, but who express some qualified certainty.

Uncertain: Believe that God created life, but admit they are not certain how.

Large Churches: More than 250 Adults in attendance at weekend services.

I find the results on the last two questions, concerning Adam and Eve and sin and death, mildly surprising. For me at least, these questions – especially the questions of sin and death – are far more significant than a question about the authority of, or literal interpretation of Scripture. Yet fewer than half of those who believe God created through evolution or are uncertain how God created find sin and death a concern. Only 31% in “All TE” and 46% in “Uncertain” suggested that it was either a major or a minor concern.

I don’t know quite what to make of it. While I am convinced that God created through evolutionary means – I also think we need to wrestle with what this might mean more than has been done often.

And a question via e-mail. The survey does not really dig any deeper than the relatively simple questions concerning Adam and Eve, sin and death. The questions, however, go deeper than sin and death alone. For many the question of sin and death is inextricably intertwined with the questions of atonement and redemption. I received an e-mail earlier this week that raised just this question.

Hi,

I was reading an article online and I would love for you to answer this claim. I really found this claim interesting and it made sense. What would your response be?

“Evolution poses a further threat to Christianity, though, a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That’s not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.”

CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THIS???

A quick search on the web found at least one source for the quoted paragraph – at the Washington Post’s On Faith forum where Paula Kirby (a consultant to secular organizations) wrote a post Evolution Threatens Christianity. Kirby’s aim is to convince her readers that the case for Christianity is unraveling before their eyes. The bit about the warm cozy sweater is in the paragraph following the one quoted above.

I think Kirby’s argument is fundamentally wrong. There is no more certain fact than the “fallenness” of humankind. We don’t need a single mother, a single father, or a snake to convince us of this. It runs through human experience worldwide. Given a fallen creation (however it got there), we need redemption and a redeemer. … That is, we need redemption and a redeemer if there is anything beyond the purely natural world. Within naturalism, sin and human “evil” (if we can call it that) simply is, as a natural product of evolutionary processes and survival of the fittest. It is naturalism, not evolution, that poses the threat to Christianity. And, of course, it is naturalism, not evolution that leads one to the conclusion that there is “not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.“

That “evolution destroys the loving creator on which the whole of Christianity depends” is ridiculous. The method of creation doesn’t destroy the idea of a loving creator. And the instant creation of Genesis 1 and 2 doesn’t do away with the problem of evil or the fact that the snake was in the garden before the fall.

On the issues of redemption, redeemer, crucifixion and resurrection, Scot’s post yesterday, They Killed Him, but God Raised Him, points to a deeper understanding of the events of Jesus’s death and resurrection. Atonement, and atonement for sins certainly. But the overly streamlined story of creation, fall, redemption, and eternal life doesn’t do justice to the whole sweep of scripture, including the New Testament story of Jesus or the early church. It does, however, provide fuel and an opening for those like Kirby who seek simple ways to cast doubt on the Christian story.

This isn’t a complete answer to the question however, and many who read may disagree with me (some quite profoundly).

How would you answer Kirby and the concerns of the e-mail writer?

Or do you think that Kirby’s right – no Adam, no Eve, no need for a redeemer, the whole thing falls a part?

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

If you wish to comment please see A Question About Evolution – Answers Anyone? on Jesus Creed.

My kids, about 12 years ago, wandering in the ruins at Tel Be’er Sheva.

Over the last year or so I have been listening to scripture straight through in large chunks during my commute (20-25 minutes each way depending on traffic). The Bible Gateway App for my phone has a great feature that permits listening to an audio reading or dramatization of several different translations. Plug the phone into the power outlet (evolved from a cigarette lighter with vestigial features of such, a cultural idea my children need to have explained to them) for power, into the sound system on the dash for volume, and off we go.

The idea of reading/listening straight through wasn’t my idea to begin with. I got it from one of the many wise commenters on this blog. It has been a fascinating experience, and one I have commented on in earlier posts. While I had read the Bible since childhood – the bits and pieces scattered here and there, primarily aimed at salvation (Romans Road and heaven) or at moral lessons for twentieth or now twenty-first century life provided little real grounding in the story of scripture.

This latest time through the text I started with the prophets, then continued to the NT. Over the last couple of weeks I have been listening to the early part of the OT once again. Genesis, Exodus (all that exciting tabernacle stuff), Leviticus (all those purity laws – not to mention the laws concerning defiling skin diseases), Numbers (the name of this book conveys the excitement) and on. Every time through I get a better perspective on the whole.

Lately I have been listening with two thoughts in mind: “What does this mean through the spectacles of the Jesus Creed?” and “What does it mean if we look back from the perspective of Revelation?” If we are being drawn towards God’s future – what was the point of Joseph, Moses, Leviticus, Joshua?

But … the Jesus Creed … God’s Future … that is all well and good. But what does it have to do with much, perhaps most, of the text we have? What is the point of all this detail about defiling skin diseases, defiling molds, and placing the blood on the lobe of the right ear, on the thumb of the right hand and on the big toe of the right foot? To pick just a few examples.

Ancient Ways of Thinking. Pete Enns has found that the killing of the Canaanites, the herem warefare of Joshua and elsewhere in the OT, is among the most contentious topics he can raise. See his recent post On Creation and Killing Canaanites and posts linked within this one. Pete concluded the post with an important observation:

So, the question, “Why would God command the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites?” cannot be addressed in an intramural theological back-and-forth. It must also include this little bit of historical information: Yahweh’s actions are not unique but seem part of an ancient way of thinking.

Maybe that’s the best way to sum up what I’m saying here: theological discussions about biblical interpretation must be in conversation with ancient ways of thinking.

Replica of ancient horned altar found at Tel Be’er Sheva.

This may not be a profound point, but it is a very important one. Theological discussions about biblical interpretation must be in conversation with ancient ways of thinking. It isn’t just the “troubling” passages where we have a moral dilemma that must be in conversation with ancient ways of thinking, but the whole text. Defiling skin diseases, defiling molds, and the sprinkling of blood must all be understood in conversation with ancient ways of thinking. The story of Joseph and of the Exodus must be understood in conversation with ancient ways of thinking.

John Walton is general editor for the Old Testament volumes the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentaries. In Methodology: An Introductory Essay he introduces the purpose of the series to provide information on the context behind the OT books. After a brief discussion of creation narratives, makes the point:

The biblical text, in other words, formulated its discussion in relation to the thinking found in the ancient literature. It should be no surprise, then, if the areas of similarity are found. This is far different from the contention that Israelite literature is simply derivative mythology. There is a great distance between borrowing from a particular piece of literature (as has been claimed in critical circles) and resonating with the larger culture that has itself been influenced by its literatures. (ix)

Walton points out that this extends not only to the content of the ancient literature, but to the genre of the literature. Ancient genres do not match 21st century ideas and sensibilities. What was the expected form and content of a history in the ancient world? What purpose did genealogies and dates and numbers serve?

The importance of ancient context extends as well to Leviticus. Roy E. Gane in his background commentary on Leviticus begins:

Leviticus, the central book of the Torah …, has to do with the areas of ritual worship and religious, criminal, and civil law, which were central to the cultural life and governance of all ancient Near Eastern societies and generated a vast quantity of preserved texts and objects. So the scope for relationship between this biblical book and parallel materials is practically limitless.

More breathtaking than the sheer volume of parallels is the fact that so many of them are so close. … It is abundantly clear that Leviticus was meant to communicate with and address the needs of real people in the context of their ancient Near Eastern culture, which contained a number of positive elements worthy to be affirmed and continued. (p. 285-286)

The title of this post comes out the the rhythmic repetition “it is a defiling skin disease” that stuck with me as I listend to Leviticus 13 last week. The concept of a defiling skin disease is not unique to the Israelite people. Gane points out that white discoloration (eg. Lev. 13: 3,10, 20,25) is also a worrisome omen in some Mesopotamian sources, the idea that skin disease could be divine punishment is found Mesopotamian curses, and these also speak of ostracizing persons who have such a skin disease. A fungus in a house could also be ominous in Mesopotamian culture.

By contrast, while fungus in an Israelite house could generate the need to ritually purify it – or (in a worst case scenario) could lead to its condemnation and demolition – the problem was limited to the house and did not indicate other kinds of dangers (caused by demons, etc.) for future inhabitants. So there was inconvenience, but once again, the religion of Israel’s God eliminates superstition and the fear that results from it. (p. 303)

And after further discussion of a purification ritual with similarities and differences he points out:

Such similarities reinforce the concept that the Israelite ritual system and the worldview associated with it shared much with common ancient Near Eastern heritage, but important differences made Israelite religion unique in crucial ways. (p. 303)

He points out that the fact that Leviticus marries religion to social ethics and to attitudes of the heart like “love” for one another is a fundamental distinction between the biblical text and the other ancient Near Eastern law collections.

God’s Mission. I’d like to add to Pete’s point (with a point I probably got from him in the first place). Theological discussions about biblical interpretation must be in conversation with the whole sweep of scripture. The passages in Genesis, Leviticus, and Joshua must be read in the context of the prophets and the exile. There are allusions and references that pop up in the Pentateuch that echo Kings, Chronicles, and the prophets. Sacrificing children to Molek as an example.

The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. (Lev. 20:1-3)

This is a theme that reappears in 1,2 Kings, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Asherah poles, intermarriage, and the corruption by the idols brought into the house by a wife pop up repeatedly. When we read the scripture as a whole, in large chunks, from beginning to end, the echoes of connection are inescapable. Other themes – love your neighbor as yourself, care for the widows, the orphans, the poor among you, fair treatment for the foreigner living among you also run through the whole. Again the connections are inescapable.

And it isn’t just the Old Testament. The New Testament writers link the story of Jesus to the books of the Old Testament. The allusions in Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, Acts and the Epistles are innumerable. And the book of Revelation links the story of Jesus, thus the entire story of scripture, to “The Story of God’s Future” – the new heavens and the new earth.

The uniting theme, it seems to me, is God is pulling his people, which ultimately includes people of all nations and cultures, into his future. The ethical message that underlies it is the command to love God and love others.

The oft heard criticism that science and faith are at loggerheads, irreconcilable enemies; that the bible is merely a collection of disjointed stories and moral legends; that modern knowledge and understanding has relegated Christian faith to the dust bin of time to stand alongside other myths and stories, Ra, Zeus, and Thor; that gods are hypothesized only to explain the otherwise inexplicable aspects of nature; God is no longer a necessary hypothesis; are eviscerated by the vision of the work of God in his creation.

That ancient texts reflect ancient culture is incidental to the truth and only to be expected. This is true of cosmology, ritual behavior, and more. We understand the message of God far better when we understand the ancient culture and context and when we are immersed in the entire sweep of scripture.

What role does the OT play in our understanding of the mission of God?

Does it make sense to view the whole from the perspective of God’s future?

Do passages like those on the Exodus and defiling skin diseases play an important role?

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

If you would like to comment please see It is a Defiling Skin Disease … Say What? on Jesus Creed.

In Mar. and Oct. 2012 a phone survey of 743 senior pastors and priests was conducted. The cooperation rate was quite high. For the 602 protestant senior pastors included in the first two graphs here Barna reports a cooperation rate of 96% suggesting that the results are representative of the group. The graphics on the BioLogos site displays the results of the survey in the form of a pie or circle chart. Here I will plot the results in the form of bar graphs to provide a different visualization of the same data. The data comes from the press release of the survey.

Categories of views. The responses provided by the pastors to a series of questions were used to separate them into seven different categories with respect to views of origins. These seven categories are defined as follows:

YEC: Young Earth Creation. Believe that God created life in its present form in six 24 hour days. Assert that the earth is less than 10000 years old. Absolutely certain of these perspectives.

Lean YEC: All others who believe that God created life in its present form in six 24 hour days, but who express qualified uncertainty or who doubt “young” age of the earth.

PC: Progressive creation. Believe that God created life in its present form over a period of time, but not via evolution. Absolutely certain of this perspective.

Lean PC: All others who embrace an old earth view, but who express qualified uncertainty.

TE: Theistic evolution. Believe God created life, used a natural process like evolution. Absolutely certain of this perspective. Express the belief that natural selection can explain the rise of new species.

Lean TE: All others who embrace the idea that God used a natural process to bring about life in its present form, but who express some qualified certainty.

Uncertain: Believe that God created life, but admit they are not certain how.

Of the pastors surveyed 54% either lean YEC or are certain of the YEC perspective, 15% prefer a progressive creation view and 18% prefer a TE perspective, although only 3% are certain that TE is correct. It is not surprising that most who take a TE view are not “absolutely certain.” If I were given such a survey it is not clear that I would be categorized as absolutely certain – although I know far more science than the vast majority of pastors.

Non-Mainline Pastors. The survey broke down the pastors between mainline and non-mainline churches. Predictably, pastors of mainline churches were far more likely to accept the possibility of the theistic evolution perspective (48%) compared with non-mainline churches (7%). The results for non-mainline pastors are summarized in the graph to the right. Within this group 68% accept YEC, 15% Old Earth progressive creation, 7% theistic evolution, and 10% are uncertain. The significant difference mainline and non-mainline pastors may lead some conservatives to point to liberalism as the root cause behind the move toward theistic evolution, but I don’t think it is quite that simple. The mainline is a diverse group and, while some are not, many of these churches and pastors are thoroughly orthodox in their theology.

View of Scripture. The view of scripture clearly plays a role however. The surveyors asked the pool of 743 pastors and priests “On a slightly different topic now, those who affirm the authority of Scripture have different ways of understanding that. Which view is closest to yours?” The options were: (1) Some portions of the Bible are symbolic, but all that it teaches is authoritative (first columns, white numbers); (2) The Bible should be taken literally, word for word (second column, yellow numbers). The remainder of those surveyed either indicated some other view or declined to answer.

Regardless of their view of origins , the majority, >83%, of each classification and 91% of the total, have a high view of the authority of scripture. The nuance is different, but the respect for scripture is not all that different. Those who hold to YEC are almost evenly split between the two options, while all three of the other groups, including those who are uncertain, say that the statement “some portions of the Bible are symbolic, but all that it teaches is authoritative” comes closest to their view.

Church Size. Finally, it is interesting to note the influence of church size on the response by the senior pastor or priest. Relatively few pastors of large churches, defined as those with 250 or more adult weekend worship attenders, claim the view that “the Bible should be taken literally, word for word” comes closest to their view. This is not simply a more sophisticated view of scripture, but carries over to the influence of church size on views of origins as well.

The final figure to the right looks at the classification of Senior Pastor’s/Priest’s views of origins broken down by church size again defined by adult weekend worshipers. This data not broken down by mainline, non-mainline or by denomination, and is not limited to Protestants alone as far as I can tell. The correlation with church size is quite striking. Fewer than half (38%) of senior pastors of large churches (those with 250 or more adult weekend worshipers) lean toward or are certain of YEC, while 26% are certain of or lean toward TE. The differences are even more pronounces when only pastors of very large churches are considered. These men are less likely to lean toward YEC than toward TE, and few if any claim certainty for either view. In fact, a significant 31% believe that God created life, but admit they are not certain how without leaning toward any of the three major views.

Of all the results reported here – the correlation with size is the only one that surprised me. This, perhaps, bodes well for the future.

What do you think?

Do any of these results surprise you?

How would you classify yourself? Why?

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

If you would like to comment please see Creation, Evolution, and US Pastors on Jesus Creed.

Of course we are remembering Willard on this site because he was not simply a professor of philosophy. He was, especially later in his career, a philosophy professor “for the church”. He wasn’t simply trying to succeed in his career, but was making a difference for the church. I’ve been a professor now – Chemistry not Philosophy – for 20 years at a major secular University. It isn’t an easy task, or a particularly comfortable environment much of the time. I was introduced to Willard and his work through the pastor of our church, especially The Divine Conspiracy which figured large in a series on The Sermon on the Mount. Since then I’ve read several of his other books as well.

For many Willard was connected with the idea of spiritual disciplines from one of his first “religious” books – The Spirit of the Disciplines published in 1988. What impressed me most with Willard, however, was his approach to Christianity with intellectual integrity and with faith. This observation from John Ortberg’s tribute to Dallas Willard in Christianity Today I find a particularly powerful reflection of his strength, and it serves as an example and a challenge for the rest of us who continue on for a time.

In one of his classes a student challenged him with statements that were both offensive and incorrect. Dallas paused and told the class that that was a good place to end their discussion. Somebody asked Dallas afterward why he had not countered the students’ argument and put him in his place. “I’m practicing the discipline of not having to have the last word.”

This is part of why Dallas would never debate non-believers. He would engage in a mutual conversation where both parties could seek for truth together. He would often say: “I’m sure Jesus is the kind of person who would be the first to say you must ruthlessly follow the truth wherever it leads.” Through the last week of his life he was still hoping to help believers engage non-believers by looking together at questions where people get stuck in their actual lives rather than by trying to win arguments.

We need quality Christian thinkers like Willard, unafraid of truth and inquiry. Those who can stand up and think, who don’t need the last word, and who ruthlessly follow truth wherever it leads. I am not sure how many realize how deeply important this is in the 21st century church and university. We will miss his voice and insight.

Rather than end on that note however, I would like to put up for conversation some ideas from what must have been one of Willard’s last public speaking engagements.

Skepticism for the Good. On Feb 12, 2013 Dallas Willard participated in a Veritas Forum event at the Claremont Consortium. The title of his presentation: What Skepticism is Good For. The video is available on the Veritas site (link on the title) and on YouTube (embedded below). The video is long, but well worth a listen if you have the time. In the first segment (41 minutes) Dallas Willard gives an overview of the value of skepticism in thinking through the issues of life and of some of the pitfalls of skepticism. This is followed by about another 41 minutes of question and answer, with a local Philosophy professor and from the audience. I highly recommend the first segment, even if you haven’t time for the whole thing. For the sake of discussion here however, I’ll highlight a few key points below the clip.

The Purpose of Skepticism. Willard starts off the talk outlining the two purposes of skepticism.

1) To undermine illegitimate forms of authority.

2) To stimulate inquiry.

We need skepticism for both of these reasons. We move forward in knowledge and understanding through the inquiry stimulated by skepticism. This skepticism is directed toward unsatisfactory answers to questions about the world around us and questions about the nature of life.

We also need skepticism to break free of illegitimate forms of authority – whether political, intellectual, secular, or religious.

Later in the talk (~25 minutes) Willard focuses on two kinds of skepticism.

1) Extreme dogmatic skepticism. This kind of skepticism shuts off serious inquiry to things that really matter.

2) Targeted skepticism. This is, Willard claims, an intellectual duty that has virtue about it. It arises from the need for truth and knowledge in responsible living.

To teach critical thinking is to teach a targeted skepticism.

Finally a quote: (28:50-29:40)

Institutions could, without becoming terribly crushing in their authority, help people come to the place where their beliefs are based upon knowledge. But institutions tend not to do that because they find inquiry threatening. And one of the worst things that happens for young people, particularly who are raised in a particular political or religious context is they’re encouraged to think that to inquire is itself a kind of treason. Whereas the only hopeful thing for a young person is to inquire in such a way as to find out the extent to which their beliefs can be based upon knowledge.

We don’t need debate, and we don’t need dogmatic authority. Within the church and within the academy we need healthy targeted skepticism. We need mutual conversation where both parties can seek for truth together.

And … we need to practice the discipline of not needing the last word. We are in this pursuit of truth for the long haul. Honest inquiry and skepticism should never be viewed as a kind of treason.

Do you think we should ruthlessly pursue truth wherever it leads?

Is targeted skepticism healthy? Can the faith stand up to inquiry?

Of what should we be afraid?

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

If you would like to comment please see Skepticism and (Not Needing) The Last Word on Jesus Creed.

On the science side, of course, acceptance of miracles is met with complete incredulity. Ard Louis has a scholarly essay also extracted into a series of posts on Miracles and Science over at BioLogos (Part 1 here). His essay begins with a typical encounter:

Unbelievable, isn’t it, that there are still students at this university who believe in stories from the Bible, said Martin, an older colleague, at one of the formal dinners around which the traditional life of Oxford University revolves. But Martin, I answered, their faith probably doesn’t differ much from mine. I can still see his face go pale while he nearly choked on his glass of St. Emilion Grand Cru Classé: How can you believe in such things nowadays – Walking on water, a resurrection from the dead? Those are miracles, and aren’t you a scientist?

If miracles are arbitrary acts of imaginative supernatural showmanship the incredulity of Martin is understandable. But they are not. And this connects with an essay by Pete Enns also on the BioLogos site several years ago (Jesus and the Sea) looking at the incidents in the ministry of Jesus where he rebuked or calmed the sea. These were not arbitrary acts, magic tricks, or acts of convenience to make life easier. These were miracles with a purpose – where the impact could not be missed. The essay concludes:

The theological power of these episodes is more fully appreciated when we keep before us the Old Testament “taming the water” theme they echo. This helps us see that the purpose of these two episodes was not simply to calm a storm for its own sake or to help the disciples get to the other side of the lake safely. It was to show the disciples what kind of messiah Jesus was. Israel’s God–the chaos tamer who rebukes the water–was here among them. The long-awaited messianic age has dawned, with more power and authority than anyone had expected. As Jesus says in John 8:46-47, to listen to him is to belong to God. Controlling the water shows his disciples–and us–that Jesus is worthy of our attention.

These are both excellent essays – well worth reading and pondering. They ask important questions:

When and why does God work miracles? How are miracles to be understood?

Following on with these thoughts, I would like to put forward an idea considering creation, miracles, and acts of God. These are nascent thoughts, only in the process of formation. I open it up for discussion.

In most of the miracles described in scripture, perhaps all, there is a purpose and a meaning behind the miracle. The purpose is to reveal the power of God, to further his mission in relationship with his people created in his image, to redeem mankind, to inaugurate the kingdom. But everyday life of cause and effect, normal events, human relationships, dominate the scripture. I rather expect creation is much the same – ordinary evolution of time, ordinary cause and effect. Where might we expect exceptions? Alister McGrath in his book A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (see post here) notes that Augustine suggested that God created by potencies and process. Augustine’s interpretation of scripture led him to conclude that God created not by producing ready-made plants and animals but by potencies and process. He uses the analogy of seeds – not as literal objects but as a way to wrestle with “the theologically difficult notion of a hidden force within nature through which latent things are enacted (p. 102).” Following up on Augustine’s ideas, I think the acts of God in creation are tied up in events from which the stages of creation emerge to bring about his plan.

A small town near us puts on an impressive display July 3. A few years ago my daughter and I went. The weather was great – and so was the show. My favorite displays are layered with one blast from which a larger emerges, and finally an enormous spray from the first two. I look forward to the opportunity for another show in a couple of months. Last year we missed out entirely when tornado warnings and thunderstorms led to a cancellation of the show in Minnesota where we were visiting my parents. It was a disappointment.

When I think about creation as an act of God the image of such a firework display comes to mind. We have a series of events from which something bigger and better, with more potential emerges. Following this image and the ideas of Augustine, perhaps there are places in creation where something new, with greater potential and purpose emerges from what came before. Here we may see the hand of God, the act of God; in the big bang setting up a universe finely tuned for life; in the emergence of life from atoms and molecules; in the creation of humans in the image of God, for a purpose.

I don’t expect to see gaps with an absence of cause and effect. I don’t expect empirical proof amenable to scientific investigation. An absence of cause and effect within a chain of events isn’t the case in most, perhaps all, of the miracles of scripture. The miracle is evident only to those who are present to observe the act in the context of its purpose.

Ard Louis concludes his scholarly essay concerning miracles:

… let me resort to a musical analogy borrowed from Colin Humphreys. Suppose you are watching a pianist play a classical piece. You will notice that there are certain notes that he plays, and certain ones that he never does. The choice of notes is constrained because the music is being played in a particular key signature. But then, occasionally he may break this rule and play an unusual note. Musicians call these accidentals, and a composer can put them in wherever she likes (although if there are too many the music would sound strange). As Humphreys puts it,

If he is a great composer, the accidentals will never be used capriciously: they will always make better music. It is the accidentals which contribute to making the piece of music great. The analogy with how God operates is clear: God created and upholds the universe but, like the great composer, he is free to override his own rules. However, if he is a consistent God, it must make more sense than less for him to override his rules.(Quote from C. Humphreys)

Miracles serve a purpose to further the mission of God. They are significant in relationship between God and his people. They must make sense in the context of the overall story.

This clip, a bit longer than I usually post, is Professor Sir Colin Humphreys, a material scientist at Cambridge University, on miracles.

What do you think?

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

If you would like to comment please see A Miraculous Creation on Jesus Creed.

(This is a slight revision of an earlier post.)

From the CT article:

The Christian doctrine of Creation has often been hijacked by controversies over how old the universe is. It has been hollowed out by the theory that God simply ignites the universe and then goes off for a cup of coffee, never touching his masterwork again. It is interesting that attacks on belief in a Creator, whether from Hawking, Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion, or Lawrence M. Krauss’s recent A Universe from Nothing, tend to target this diminished deity. But the Bible has a much bigger understanding of God as Creator. Not only does the doctrine of Creation feature in Scripture beyond just Genesis 1, God’s creative activity permeates every moment of the history of the universe.

Scientific explanations can only go so far. To address the big questions we have to go deeper into the transcendent meaning of the facts. In this clip from Test of Faith (an excellent resource by the way) Wilkerson goes to George Lucas and Star Wars and to the scientific description of a kiss to explain what he means.

At 2:04 in the video:

What is the scientific definition of a kiss? Well a kiss is the approach of two pairs of lips, the reciprocal transmission of carbon dioxide and microbes, and the juxtaposition of two orbicular muscles in a state of contraction. That is a kiss in scientific terms. But if I go to my wife and say to her, “Allison, I’d love to get together with you for a mutual transmission of carbon dioxide and microbes” she would say “Get lost.”

In this next clip he takes this transcendent meaning back into the interpretation of Genesis.

In the Christianity Today article Wilkinson makes five points – good for a five point sermon on creation perhaps. You can read Wilkinson’s article at CT. I will add a few of my own comments here.

First: the Christian doctrine of Creation is never an abstract, academic concept.

Genesis isn’t a scientific account of the origin of the world. It is an account of God shaping the world, in relationship, for his purpose. Wilkinson points to other creation narratives in scripture as well to make his point. Proverbs 8:22-36; Psalms. 8, 19, and 148; Job 38-42; Isa. 40:9-31.

Second: the Christian doctrine of Creation has Christ at the center.

Our doctrine of Creation must have a key place for Jesus. The incarnation is not plan B and “it will not suffice to look for gaps in the scientific account into which God can be squeezed.” A few key passages:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. … The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-5,14)

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col. 1:15-17)

Third: the Christian doctrine of Creation affirms that God is the sole creator of the universe.

He is also the sole sustainer of creation, and here we have Christ as well – for in him all things hold together. The Genesis narrative affirms God as sole creator and undermines the creative powers in all of the competing stories in ANE culture.

Fourth: the Christian doctrine of Creation needs to be seen in light of the reality of new creation.

Wilkinson emphasizes that the creator is also redeemer. Creation is good, or why would God redeem it? “And if creation has been redeemed, then we can look forward to a new creation, the “new heaven and new earth” described in Revelation 21.” I think we should go a little further than Wilkinson and flip our perspective. As Harrell points out in Nature’s Witness (see last week’s post), the whole biblical narrative, including the creation narrative, is best viewed from the perspective of Revelation. Being drawn toward the future rather than wandering along from the past, God’s plan takes shape.

Fifth: the Christian doctrine of Creation shows that humanity has the capacity for an intimate relationship with God.

Wilkinson suggests that “[b]earing God’s image is about relationship with God more than any specific human attribute or pattern of behavior.” The Trinitarian picture of God as love puts the focus on relationship. Both Daniel Harrell (See A Competent Creator under God as Relational) and Tim Keller (The Divine Dance) emphasize this.

And I will wrap up with Wilkinson’s summary:

In the Christian doctrine of Creation, we thus find a common theme. The meaning of the universe is not to be found in an impersonal cosmic force, or in a mathematical theory, or in a philosophical abstraction. Instead, it is found in a personal God who wants relationships with human beings. To be human is to receive the gift of relationship, to love and be loved by the God who created you.

The doctrine of Creation is far deeper than science, and far more important.

What do you think?

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

If you would like to comment, please see It Goes Deeper on Jesus Creed.

Christians have always believed all truth to be God’s truth, implying that science and faith, despite differences when it comes to explaining why, nevertheless should agree in regard to what. … Science matters whether we care about it or not. And because science matters, it warrants theological reflection. (p. 137)

Because science matters, it warrants theological reflection.

The point isn’t that science is an objective truth, that theology must conform or be lost in the dust of time. Rather the point is (1) that all truth is God’s truth and thus “as reliable witnesses of nature, we can only become more reliable witnesses to God.” And (2) for Christians at least, theology is the queen of the sciences … that is, it is the lens through which we interpret everything else. Because science matters it warrants theological reflection. The biblical narrative is the source and ground of this theological reflection because it records God’s interaction and relationship with his creation.

The final two chapters of Nature’s Witness (Sunday Lunch and Peach Pie in the Sky) walk through some of these theological reflections which center on death (biological and human), new creation, and the nature of time. The biggest issue is death. Science tells us that death is a necessary and natural part of the world. We can wonder a bit about the fate of mankind, but so far as plants, animals, and insects are concerned it seems an intentional and necessary part of creation. It is not that God had to use death in creation – but that he did use death in creation. Somehow, then, it must be and have always been part of his plan.

Free will, free process, and the relational nature of God. “A free-process creation results in a free-willed people.” (p. 105) This doesn’t tie God’s hands, he doesn’t just sit back an unfolding story. He interacts in relationship with his creation.

Frankly, there are too many places in the Bible where God defies creaturely freedom to suggest that his hands are ever tied. However, in most of those places, God’s defiance of creaturely freedom is in response to human abuses of freedom, such as when disease, weather, or earthquakes are employed as agents of divine judgment (e.g., Exod 9:3; 1 Kgs 17:1; Isa 29:6). (p. 106)

Ultimately God’s will will be done … he is a competent creator. It is not unreasonable to understand God as limiting his omnipotence for the good of his creation. The incarnation is but one such example – Jesus was not omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent between his birth and death. This was a voluntary self-limiting act.

The flourishing of creation requires renewal – and in our present world renewal requires death and the recycling of matter and genetic diversity (perhaps we should say information).

Life on this planet was never eternal. Aging and progress are not the result of the fall. The creatures were told to be fruitful and multiply, Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply. I’ve quoted Calvin before on this issue – but even Calvin did not think life on earth would have been eternal, rather Calvin thought that Adam and Eve would have moved to the next stage without the pain of disease, decay, and death. Harrell sums up like this:

Even Jesus aged. If Adam’s life on earth had been a sin-free paradise, it still could not have been eternal. Physics as we understand it could not allow earth to go on indefinitely. If we understand physics rightly, then God never intended earth to go on indefinitely either (since God is the author of physics). Eternal life is not about living forever on this planet. It’s about a relationship with God that transcends this world into new creation. (p. 113)

What then is our hope? Harrell suggests that rather than viewing creation as something good that went bad with a recovery plan to follow we should look at the Christian story and God’s creative design from Revelation backwards. God is pulling creation toward the age to come in accord with his perfect plan.

It’s as if redemption was the purpose from the beginning. It’s as if creation is being pulled, called toward that day when all things will become radically new in Christ. If perfection never was and is “not-yet,” the appearance of evil and suffering (including the suffering and struggle depicted by Darwinian science) is no longer inconceivable. That the serpent got into the garden may suggest that everything was not yet right with the world, even before everything went wrong. (p. 118)

Harrell also considers the idea that God is outside of time and unbound by time. Time is intrinsic to God’s good creation – but it is a part of the creation, it does not transcend creation. Evolution is a part of God’s creation – but it is not the means by which the completion of God’s good creation will occur. The consummation in new creation will have continuity with creation as we know it, but will also step outside of and transcend the limitations of our present creation in ways we can not begin to see but dimly. New creation, no death, decay, or giving in marriage (i.e. procreation) points us to something outside of the physics we know in our creation.

Evolution has a forward-facing orientation, propelled by the bang of energy that blasts it into motion from the beginning. However, theology that pairs with evolution works better, not by likewise looking for its energy from the past but by fulfilling its promises with energy from a definite future. … The evil experienced does not mar perfection but rather is being swallowed up in the victory that God has already won since the foundation of the world (1 Cor 15:54; Rev 13:8). This is why hope in God cannot disappoint (Rom 5:5). (p. 126)

Once again relationship is the key. God is intrinsically relational and creation is an outpouring of that relationship. Harrell puts it like this:

In the end it is my relationship to God through Christ, sustained and applied by the Holy Spirit, that is the real guarantor of my continuity from this life into the next. The Trinity, which created as an outpouring of its self-giving generosity, draws all creation back into themselves as an ingathering of its generosity. The movement is one of relationship, freedom that leads to embrace to the ever-giving and ever-beckoning power of sacrificial love. God’s love gives and gives up for the sake of creation and redemption. (p. 126)

Redirected Focus. The way Harrell redirects the focus of creation, fall, redemption, and new creation is worth some serious consideration. Although it may force us to reshape some of our thinking – and the perspective we take on God’s creation, it is biblical. Being drawn toward the future rather than wandering along from the past, God’s plan takes shape. Teleology is, perhaps, only apparent with hindsight from our limited temporal view. The fall was real – there was a real breaking of relationship with the God of all creation. Jesus came to redeem mankind, but he did not come to correct a plan gone awry. He is “the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.” (Rev 13:8)

What do you think?

Does the idea of viewing creation from Revelation backwards make sense?

Does the Bible tell us that creation was perfect? Or was it just “good.” Is there a difference?

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

If you would like to  please see Being Drawn Toward the Future on Jesus Creed.

I read an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (aka PNAS) recently where the investigators looked at self-segregation as a function of institution size. Both simulation and survey methods were used in the study. This article, Structural effect of size on interracial friendship, explored the influence that the size of a social context has on the diversity of interactions. The article itself requires a subscription to access, but the results have also made several news stories including this one at Science Daily and this one, School size plays a role in interracial friendships, that found its way to USA Today.

The general assumption is that people prefer to interact with people who are “like them.” To quote from the paper: “Most social scientists assume that individuals prefer to make friends with people of similar social attributes, including race/ethnicity, relation, age, education, and social class. However, any individual’s likelihood of finding a satisfactory friend in terms of group similarity is constrained by the opportunities available in the person’s social context.” The purpose of the study published in PNAS was to investigate the structural effect of context size while holding everything else constant. The paper focuses on race for comparison of survey data from high schools – but the conclusions are not limited to race. They apply as well to age, education, social class and other selection parameters.

The major conclusions of this PNAS study are:

(1) Total context size has a distinct effect on interracial friendship. An increase in the size of the total group decreases the likelihood of forming an interracial friendship.

(2) The effect of size increases when the number of variables for preference increases. (Just race, race plus personality, race plus personality plus academic ability …). The groups become increasingly homogenous as the size of the total pool increases because there is an increasing chance to find friends who match.

(3) “Noise” disturbs the trends somewhat. There will always be real anecdotal exceptions to the general pattern.

(4) The observations are not limited to interracial relations, but have application to many other parameters. While the surveys focus on race – but the simulations are far more general.

I think this study may have profound implications for how we think about church dynamics. According to this study a large church – however diverse it may be as a whole – will have less real diversity of interaction and fellowship than a smaller church of similar global diversity.

Is this good?

Is it Bad?

… or …

Is it indifferent, of minor concern?

Four observations …

First: A few weeks ago in the worship service we were shown a short video prepared by a megachurch (which one is irrelevant) that was designed to encourage people to join a small group. The video opened with a couple lost in a mass of people in worship, discussed the search for a comfortable small group, and ended up with the couple happily involved in a small group of “people just like you.” That phrase bothered me a bit when I first saw the video – and when this PNAS article came to my attention about a week later it put a finger on some of my unease.

Second: A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a person who complained that the small group facilitator at their church kept sending them “uninteresting” people. They had to tell the facilitator to stop – and provided some guidance on the type of person (just like them) they wanted in the group. The person I was speaking with felt this was an “of course” kind of issue, and there was nothing wrong with limiting fellowship to “interesting” people.

To what extent should Christian fellowship be about finding people “just like you?”

There is certainly value in affinity groups and accountability or fellowship groups of people at similar places. Sometimes we need the safety of similarity. But there is also value in diverse interaction with people who are not “just like you.”

Should a church encourage diverse interactions and fellowship?

If so, how can this be done?

Third: In a recent conversation with a friend where this article came up, my friend noted that some 20 or so years ago he had been part of a medium sized, relatively diverse church. The pastor of that church had commented that he was breaking every rule set forth by the church growth movement … and glad of it. He preferred his diverse relational church. I don’t bring this up as some golden example – just as a contrast to the focus on size that seems to run through the suburban (mostly white) evangelical church. Can we truly value both size and diverse relationship?

As laypeople, what should we be looking for in a church?

What kind of church should leadership try to cultivate?

To what extend should we or should we not focus on size?

Finally: We live today in a highly mobile society faced with a plethora of choices. We are not limited to a neighborhood, a denomination, or even a city. On top of the competition from a variety of churches and other social groupings, we can find people “just like us” in virtual gatherings formed on the internet. One of the authors of the original article is quoted in the Science Daily link:

One potential negative social consequence of the Internet as a social interaction medium in an ever more globalized world is to encourage social isolation and social segmentation by expanding group size immensely,” Cheng said.

This leads me to my last question:

Is valuing diversity of fellowship simply a losing battle, one the church can’t afford to worry about?

Is the answer that we need to yield to these pressures to reach and keep people?

My Opinion (take it for what it is worth): I think churches should, perhaps, cultivate a culture with multiple intersecting and overlapping groups. Rather than optional “programs” these are circles that cultivate diverse relationship. There is nothing wrong with a fellowship group of people “just like me” when also involved in a wide range of other community activities.

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

If you would like to comment please see Just Like Me? on Jesus Creed.

It is an overstatement to call this series of posts a MOOC – but it is a valuable resource nonetheless and I would like to give it a shout out here for those who may be interested.

From the blurb on his page Dennis’s research focuses “on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling, using the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. The superior genetic and molecular biology tools available in Drosophila make this organism second to none for developmental biology studies. Current projects include investigating the role of several cell-cell junction and cytoskeletal components during frizzled-independent tissue patterning of the pupal wing in flies.” Ok, this may seem a bit esoteric to many of us … but this kind of research, along with his teaching experience, give Dennis the expertise in genetics and evolution to write a useful introduction – Evolution Basics. Eight posts are available thus far, and more are planned. The topics include such important concepts as “Evolution as Scientific Theory“, “Variation, Artificial Selection and Natural Selection“, and the ever popular “Evolution and the Human Lineage“.

Consider the idea of Evolution as Scientific Theory:

In common English usage, “theory” means something like “guess” or “hunch”. It means something speculative, uncertain. In science, however, the meaning is almost exactly the opposite. In science, a theory is an idea that has stood the test of time. This difference between the common usage and the scientific usage of the word is a frequent source of confusion for nonscientists. In science, a theory is a well-tested idea – an explanatory framework that makes sense of the current facts available, and continues to make accurate predictions about the natural world.

Theories get their start as merely an idea, or hypothesis (plural = hypotheses). This literally means “less than” (hypo) a theory (thesis)”, and the name is appropriate. What scientists call a hypothesis is basically what nonscientists call a “theory” in the common English sense we discussed above. It’s an idea that makes sense, and fits with what we already know, but as such does not yet have much (or even any) experimental support. Here is where science departs from other approaches to knowledge: the key feature that distinguishes science from other activities is hypothesis testing. Rather than merely entertain a hypothesis as an interesting idea, scientists use a hypothesis to make specific predictions about the natural world, and then test to see if these predictions can be supported with experimental evidence.

…

So, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Simply this: despite what many evangelical Christians have been told, evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It started off as a hypothesis, and scientists have been trying to reject that hypothesis to no avail. In the present day evolution is an explanatory framework that has withstood 150 years of testing, and continues to make accurate predictions about the natural world. Like heliocentrism, our ideas about evolution have developed significantly since the 1850s.

Today the evidence for evolution can be represented as a tapestry of many different threads woven together (an analogy not original to me). There is evidence from paleontology, from comparative anatomy, from embryology, from genetics, from cellular biology. These threads all weave together to form a consistent picture of evolutionary change. Threads are constantly added and some are occasionally revised and removed. We don’t, by a long shot, understand all of the details of biology yet – there is redundancy, recruitment of building blocks to serve a variety of functions, and a systems level feedback – much of which we are only beginning to understand. While it is virtually certain that parts of our current understanding of evolutionary biology is wrong, it is exceedingly unlikely that corrections and developments will make plausible a young earth or special creation view of origins. Intelligent design is slightly different – while some proposals have not held up to scrutiny, we know so little about the origin of life that it is unwise to make any kind of firm pronouncement. Any statement about the presence or absence of design in the origin of life of necessity represents a philosophical position.

To say that evolution is “only” a theory and thus should be taken with a grain of salt – as so many evangelical critics are wont to do – is to misunderstand the scientific meaning of the word theory.

Artificial and Natural Selection in the Dog. Dennis uses examples of artificial and natural selection in the domestication of dogs (a subspecies of the gray wolf) to illustrate some of the features of evolution. Artificial selection has been used for millenia to artificially select for traits and features. Nature provides variations – and humans have added some tendency for selection in the selective breeding of dogs for desired traits. The dachshund shown to the right (image from wikipedia) is the result of many generations of selective breeding taking available of natural variations.

The Canis lupus species also provides an example of natural selection for a trait that is separating the dog from the wolf. The dog has a new gene, a duplication of a gene for an amylase enzyme found in the pancreas and involved in starch metabolism. Dogs, Dennis tells us, have 2 to 15 copies of this gene. Wolves have but one copy. Apparently duplication of this gene is a “relatively” common occurrence (rare but non-negligible). Gene duplication is a potent pathway in evolution. In this case the dog, cavorting with humans, consumes a fair amount of starch. Thus there is a selective advantage for duplicate copies of the gene, and the production of more amylase enzyme. There is no selective pressure for preservation of multiple copies of this gene in wolves who eat but little starch – and they continue to possess but one copy.

Duplication of the gene for the production of the amylase protein also occurred in the human lineage – here however the duplication was followed (or accompanied) by a change that modified the function of one of the copies resulting in production of the amylase enzyme in the saliva as well as in the pancreas (where it is found in dogs). Far more detail can be found in Dennis’s posts (Natural Selection and the Human Lineage Part 1 for example) – and in the references provided there.

If you are interested in understanding more of evolutionary biology, and why the theory is so convincing, I recommend this series of posts on BioLogos. From time to time (including the post today) we can discuss some of the issues here as well.

What does it mean to say that an idea is a theory?

What is the opposite of theory?

What would is take to prove or disprove a theory?

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

If you would like to comment please see Evolution – A MOOC? (Well Not Quite) on Jesus Creed.

A scientist tells God that he’s figured out how to create life from the dust of the ground, just like God did in the beginning. Consequently, the scientist says, he’s shown that God is no longer a plausible hypothesis for the origin of life. Impressed, the Lord tells the scientist to do it again; he’d like to watch. So the scientist picks up a handful of dirt. But the Lord stops him right there.

“Uh-uh” God says. “Get your own dirt.”

This sets the stage for much of the chapter entitled “Believolution.” God is the creator of all – and he is a competent creator. He is involved in the natural, not only the supernatural. He is behind the process, not only the outcome. “A natural explanation is not a godless explanation because God made nature. The natural world is evidence of his mind-blowing skill.” (p. 70) Here I will highlight three points Harrell makes in this chapter.

God as Relational. Harrell goes on to give a clear explanation of one of the key points – one that I try to make fairly often when discussing the issue of creation and origins.

God’s competence does not negate intervention. God does intervene after creation, but his intervention is not to repair, but to relate. Having made his world, he intends to enjoy it not abandon it. Maybe a better word than intervention would be the world involvement. (p. 70)

When we think of God as creator, and as sovereign, we also need to step back and think about God in relationship with his creation and with his creatures. When miracles happen they always happen for a specific purpose of God in the context of this relationship.

Like Keller (and many others) Harrell here turns to the Trinity. Harrell points out that we cannot explain the Trinity, and this it important. The Trinity (like many other aspects of God) “defies human explanation, [and] therefore defies human control and exploitation.“

For Christians faith in God as Trinity means faith in God as personal (or as I mentioned before, tri-personal). God exists in eternal relationship. As personal, God could never be detached from his creation. As personal, God cares for creation. The Trinity is an eternal relationship of persons, a three-in-one community of love so bound together yet so abounding that the love happily spills over into a creation that God can’t help but love too. Created by God, his creation bears the mark of relationality. Everything in nature is interconnected. The relational God creates a relational creation as an expression of himself. (p. 73)

God created people to enjoy relationship with each other and with God. Relationality runs through the whole Christian story. God is not a distant deity, desiring only worship and adoration …he is in relationship with his creation from Genesis through Revelation: Creation, Garden, Israel, Exile, Incarnation, Church, and on.

Apparent Randomness and Freedom. Here Harrell notes that randomness can be used for a purpose. An honest casino operator allows the fair and random roll of the dice, but the outcome is certain. If people come, the casino will make money. Like a casino, evolution’s freedom or randomness occurs within limits, and as Christians we believe that God designed those limits with all of creation.

Even given the randomness of the evolutionary process, why would we think that this rules out action of God? Harrell points to two incidents recorded in scripture (1 Chron. 25:8 and Acts 1:26). In what way did God control the casting of lots? Although we would look at the casting of lots as a random selection procedure both David and his people and the Apostles expected God to be behind the outcome of this “random” selection. But no scientific analysis should be able to detect a bias in the selection.

Beyond the question of randomness, Harrell also reflects on the nature of God’s control. Here he makes a key point I think worth some discussion.

While at times we may speak of God’s will in terms of a detailed plan, our experience is more often that of a range of possibilities. We decide to take a job as an engineer, a chemist, or a dog walker based on personal assessment, preference, and variables such as salary levels and what might please Mom and Dad. Choosing between a psychology major or a business major, marrying this person or that – all of these are choices we make of our own free will (as far as we can tell). Even the decision to believe in God is a choice freely made (Rom 1:10-13). However, just because every human choice, process, and outcome are not divinely predetermined (as far as we can tell), does not mean that such choices, processes, and outcomes are not a part of God’s will. (p. 79-80)

He goes on to use an analogy I find quite useful as we reflect on the scope and nature of God and his relationship with his creation.

What if God is like a grand-master chess player playing with an eight-year-old novice? The game has its rules and regularities (created by God), such that whatever move the eight-year-old makes, the grand master already knows its outcome. There’s no doubt who will win in the end. Likewise, with human freedom and evolutionary processes (the eight-year-old novices in this analogy), God knows what will happen in any scenario with any moves that are made. He can make any of them work for his victory. (p. 80)

The mismatch between God and his creatures is so great that, while we have real freedom to choose, the ultimate outcome is never in any doubt. The point is not the precise move of every chess piece given each range of possibilities, but the ultimate outcome of the game. Creation is far more complex than a chess game the range of possibilities many orders of magnitude larger – but yet not too large or too complex for God.

Finally – the question of Adam and Eve. Harrell discusses Genesis 1, but we all know that the major hang-up for many is the creation of humans. In what way are humans special, unique, created in the image of God? In the video below he comments briefly on the issue of Adam and Eve.

Harrell is willing to leave a range of possibilities on the table. Some require stretching of the scientific evidence to achieve agreement with a particular interpretation of scripture, some require more reinterpretation of scripture – but none are in direct conflict with either science or scripture. God could have selected a pair, Adam could be a federal representative of humankind, among other possibilities. He also discusses the relationship of body and soul. There is no clear distinction, in scripture or in science. We are embodied souls. Mind and matter are inextricably linked – although ideas, thoughts, and information can change the outcome of material processes. Harrell remains convinced (as do many of us) that humankind is unique, created in the image of God, but this does not rule out natural, including evolutionary, processes. Only God can destroy the soul – “that is, only God can kill the relationship forever between himself and those who reject him. This he does by “destroy[ing] both soul and body in hell.” (Mt 10:28 – emphasis from Harrell p. 90).

He wraps up the chapter:

If God created the heavens and the earth and made people in his own image, as the Bible teaches, and if sceince is essentially right in its description of earth’s formation and life’s evolution, then God is the God of evolution. Without God there would be no evolution. To believe in God is not to reject science any more than it is to believe that science teaches is to reject God. … The tendency is to fear scientific advancement because of the presumption that each scientific advance squeezes God further out of the picture. But if God is the God of all things, then each scientific advancement about nature only further illumines the nature of God. (p. 91)

And a prayer. This doesn’t answer all questions – we are left with issues of time, perhaps waste, the occurrence of cancer, birth defects, earthquakes, tornadoes, and tsunamis. There is much that remains for discussion. Chapter 6 poses many of these questions in the context of a prayer – asking God about the issues that remain mysterious and troublesome. The point is that we respond, not in fear, but in faith and ask God for guidance and wisdom.

“Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Ps 90:1-2 NIV). I will deal with the dissonance by standing firm in my faith. I will seek you with my whole heart. I will persist in my prayer. (p. 102)

What do you think?

Does the connection of God as Trinity with creation as relational at its core make sense?

What does it mean to say that we were made for relationship – or, for that matter, that God is Love?

Does the analogy with a chess game between a child and a grand master help with an understanding of both openness and sovereignty in creation?

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

If you would like to comment please see A Competent Creator? at Jesus Creed.