“but I think it means surrendering the intellectual battle in order to love those people, and to choose to love them regardless of whether they accept our views or not. I’m obviously still thinking through many of these implications, but I am convinced that if the church refuses to debate the hard questions”

Help me understand what you are saying here.

I like both statements, but they seem to cantradict each other. “Surrendering the intellectual battle” versus “debating the hard questions.”

I am with you on the call to repentance for willful ignorance, and on the call to love first, and debate second. But at what point should we be engaging with science and saying ‘no, you have this wrong.’ Is it only on the level of technological application? What about epistemology? I happen to think most scientists are largely unaware of their own epistemology, and so largely unaware of some serious flaws in how they view their work…

But, in light of what you are saying, should this be a point pressed, or ignored, or something else?

I have to confess that the more I think about it the more I feel that it is really far more complicated than we have allowed ourselves to think. I’ve really only just started exploring this subject and I confess to vacillating backwards and forwards.

However, I firmly believe that there is a difference between trying to win a debate and being willing to debate the hard questions. We are called not to try and beat someone into submission but love them, but also not to be afraid of the hard questions.

The truth is that most scientists reluctant as they might be to admit it also come from a limited knowledge. We like to think in our arrogance as human beings that we understand it, and often science is promoted as being really hard and fast, but we understand it in our limited way. We certainly do not understand everything.

The reason why I’ve started this in the first place is that in dialoguing with scientists about faith, I start from a serious disadvantage. Mainly because of the association of Christianity with creationism and the rise of intelligent design in schools. I don’t have the best answers to the questions about faith and God and the bible that they have, but I have to be willing to listen to them and trust God to give the answers that need to be said. Mainly I have to listen in an attitude of love for them that they might not be scared of asking the questions.

Sadly the church has sometimes been too dogmatic in forcing people to believe exactly as they hand out rather than being willing to engage in debate.

Sorry this is really off the top of my head, and as I said I am still trying to think and work it through, but the point I feel is important is that the church must think about it’s language and the way in which it talks about issues relating to science, as it is alienating people from exploring christianity. The more our culture becomes dependent on science and absorbs the latest scientific theories, the more the church must be willing to debate ideas, problems and to try and impact how these are implicated.

Naomi, you are absolutely correct that the church at-large has horribly failed to seriously engage with the scientific world (for at least some 150 years). If all truth is God’s truth, why should we be frightened? The reason is that we are too tied to specific readings of scripture that may or may not be legitimate. No Christian bible-reader today takes seriously that the sun revolves around the earth, yet we are confronted by a “clear” biblical testimony that this is in fact reality. We all understand that such scriptural statements are perspectival and should not be taken as expressions of ultimate reality–but instead should understood as observational truths.

We are able to legitimately do this because (at least in some cases) the church has been educated to read texts with respect to their genre, cultural context and overall world-view. We were forced to re-assess our understanding of biblical truth statements in light of justifiable observation and reason. Yet even though Calvin (in his reflections on Kepler-Copernicus) provided the avenue for re-assessing our biblical truth-claims in light of scientific and observational truth-claims, the church has mostly failed to mature as regards other issues. As you say, this is sad and makes Christian thinking out to be a parochial, backwater.

It used to be that the church was viewed not simply as a place for the reification of faith, but also as a place of education. This vocation has been lost in part due to the church’s success of creating public educational systems (sad irony, indeed). There are respectful ways of reading scripture that honor the text, in its contexts, and prove useful for the edification of the kingdom–and yet don’t depend on a literalistic reading. Much has been written on this (mostly in Reform circles).

Reflecting on material such as Orion’s paper is to my mind the best way forward. Genesis is a counter-mythology that envisions God building His Temple-palace upon earth, and placing His icon (humanity) within it. This basic interp resonates with hundreds of OT texts which view creation in terms of God’s Temple.

From the second question in the post:
“I’m not saying that everyone should believe in evolution, or everyone should believe in creationism, that is for each person to decide”
Surely this is a matter where only one position can be right? So shouldn’t the church’s position be that creationism is a mis-reading of the bible, and that Christian belief is consistent with biology? It just seems strange to me that someone who works in the area you do could view this aspect of reality as a personal matter.

Anyway, it is a very interesting post, and thanks for taking the time to talk with us Naomi.

Alex,

I agree that it seems strange that I should not be advocating a change to evolutionary thinking, here is my thoughts on this.

The more I read Genesis, the more I recognise that God tells us why he created the world not how. The how is left up to us. Additionally, in a westernised scientific world the how is almost accepted now as evolution. However, previously without evolution as a theory the how would have been up for debate.

I also recognise that there are faithful christians who have served Jesus their whole lives who find they cannot reconcile Genesis and evolution. Far be it from me to change them. THis is a decision that each person has to make on their own. If this is the way in which they have decided to choose, well considering all the scientific evidence this requires probably more faith than believing in evolution does and I respect them for that even though I don’t necessarily agree.

However, and this is a big however, if the decision to reject evolution is born out of fear then I do feel it needs to be challenged. Too often we fear things we don’t understand or that seem to shake our foundations. As fear leads to anger, there are no circumstances in which basing doctrinal statements on fear is acceptable. Fear is also isolating, and I believe it is this fear which has led to so many people holding onto a worldview that to many non-christians appears to have come out of hte dark ages.

Maybe I haven’t answered your question, but my feeling is unless we reach out in love with an absence of condemnation then we will accomplish nothing.

Naomi, I think i understand what you are saying; it is more important to respect peoples’ decisions than attack their factual accuracy. It just seems sad to leave them, like leaving someone to drink instant coffee when there is good coffee available. You want them to join you in the better alternative.

It seems to me, as someone who was never involved in creationist thought, that the only way that they could hold these beliefs is either through fear or ignorance. Your answer also seems to be saying it may be a position of faith. Is that right?

Sometimes, I think it is a position of faith, that people look at all the evidence and then decide to believe otherwise. Blind faith I think it would be called.

The thing is, like you, I don’t know what it looks like from the other side. I have never held to a seven day creation narrative that is in the traditional sense that a day in the story equates to a day as we understand it. However, I know many good and faithful Christians who hold this to be true. I don’t want to negate their faith or their love for Christ. The only thing I would say is that this should not be a dividing line for belief in Christ and that within the church the community should be able to hold together in spite of differences on this subject. I think it has become too big a subject in the church. Mainly because of fear and ignorance.

[...] 3/15 – Orion Edgar: “Justice and the Kingdom of God: Atonement and New Creation” 3/16 – Ryan McAnally-Linz: “The Problem of the Contested Center” 3/17 – Jared Boyd: Naming Injustice: “Doing Theology That Does Something” 3/18 – Jonathan Rutz: “The Case For Creation Care as a Defining Paradigm For the Vineyard Movement” 3/19 – Naomi Forrester: “Science vs. Christianity: A Battle To Be Won or Lost?” [...]