tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post7223724380053570486..comments2023-04-02T03:07:27.930-07:00Comments on Reformed Academic: Church and Modern ScienceReformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-19538679788220619192011-11-10T07:31:09.032-08:002011-11-10T07:31:09.032-08:00I would like to thank br. Bill Bartels for his com...I would like to thank br. Bill Bartels for his comment, as it does reflect the reality of many situations in which members leave one of our congregations, either for another church outside of our federation, or to leave the faith altogether. Thankfully there are, however, cases in which those who have been admonished have been restored to a right relationship with God and with their brothers and sisters in Christ; that is indeed the ultimate positive goal of church discipline.<br /> <br />Another reason I’m glad br. Bartels commented is that it gives me an opportunity to correct a common misunderstanding of our position on the relationship between the church and modern science. The suggestion is that some (perhaps we, or perhaps those who are wanting to leave the faith) are concerned that “the Bible is not in tune with modern-day science” or that modern-day science “puts God’s word in doubt”.<br /> <br />There are certainly those who reject the Scriptures because they believe that what it teaches is not in agreement with what has been discovered through modern scientific investigations, whether it be the earth rotating and revolving about the sun (which some think replaces Scriptural teaching on the structure of the universe), or the role of brain function in human experience and identity (which some suppose requires the rejection of Scriptural teaching about the soul), or results of biological studies (which some believe displaces Scriptural teaching about the special character of humanity), etc.<br /> <br />But we absolutely refuse to reject or compromise the Bible’s teachings. Instead, we ask for a careful and honest investigation of the actual claims of Scripture and the actual claims of science, both on their own terms and insofar as they relate to one another. In our view, the Scriptures do not in fact teach the doctrine of Young-Earth Creationism, despite the fact that many people, and increasingly more so even within our own circles, think so. While for centuries many people did indeed think that the world was really young, it is inappropriate that this kind of thinking be raised to the level of Scripture itself.<br /><br />Prior to Copernicus and Galileo, the cosmology of the day had been imported into and made into a single unit with Christian theology. This taught that the heavenly bodies were perfect spheres traveling in perfect circles (or circles upon circles) about the imperfect earth, and that these heavenly bodies were composed materially of a completely different type of substance than the earth, water, air, and fire of our daily experience; this kind of thinking was completely obvious to everyone in western civilization and was largely believed to be what Scripture itself taught. Copernicus’s idea of a sun-centred universe and Galileo’s observations of earth-like features on the moon, were seen as heretical and in need of correction only because extra-Biblical teachings had been imported into the church’s teachings.<br /><br />Could it be that, due to the significant influence of the modern-day Young-Earth Creationist movement (whose history Freda has been trying to explain clearly for many years, and which <i>Clarion</i> refuses to publish), many Christians today have been led to think that it is completely clear that the Bible teaches their specific interpretation? It is important to remember that, since exegesis always takes place within a context, there is always the need for critical reflection on the interpretation of Scripture. I confess the clarity of Scripture (and the Reformed doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture has never meant that it’s absolutely clear on all points; see for example recent pieces <a href="http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/09/perspicuity-exegetical-populis.php" rel="nofollow">by Evans</a> and <a href="http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=964&var3=main" rel="nofollow">by Gordon</a>), but it is clear to me that the glasses through which certain passages are sometimes read have the wrong prescription.<br /><br />Arnold Sikkema<br />Langley, BCArnold Sikkemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-88537998744773874942011-11-04T09:13:27.087-07:002011-11-04T09:13:27.087-07:00I acknowledge that your article “Church and Modern...I acknowledge that your article “Church and Modern Science” was interesting and revealing. Interesting because the Canadian Reformed churches do not fall into the category of the statistics and we are thankful for that. There are members that leave our church, but they are in all age groups, not just the young people, although they are more vulnerable. The article seems to indicate that members leave the church because the church is not open to modern-day science. Maybe with all your access to information you could dig up what the statistics are of those who left the faith because the Bible is not in tune with modern-day science or those who will no longer submit to the infallible word of God.<br /><br />In my experience as an office bearer over the years, I have yet to experience when the church needs to admonish or apply discipline that the role is not turned around and the blame is put on the church. There is always a minister or an office bearer who did not show enough love and tolerance, the church is always criticized for not having enough patience. When a marriage breaks up, the church never handles it right. When young people leave the church it is because the church is not in tune with the young people, etc. If all fails, then the complaint is that “the consistory simply doesn’t understand.”<br /><br />Now when modern-day science comes along and embraces the theistic evolutionary theory, then it is the church that needs to compromise, and if not the church must carry the blame that members leave because of this issue. It is not the church that puts God’s word in doubt.<br /><br />Rev. Bill DeJong states in his final remarks that he prays for unity, which is good, but unity only as it has been revealed to us in scripture.<br /><br />With regards,<br /><br />Bill Bartels<br />Ancaster, ONBill Bartelsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-10956995608656245212011-11-01T14:26:08.810-07:002011-11-01T14:26:08.810-07:00Thanks for this thoughtful piece. The present susp...Thanks for this thoughtful piece. The present suspicion of science and the inclination to young earth creationism within confessionally Reformed churches is understandable. Much of liberalism in the last century was spawned by scientism. Moreover, those promoting young earth creationism are faithful believers who love Scripture and see much of today's science as an attack on Scripture that needs to be refuted. Though I don't agree with their science or their interpretation of Scripture, I feel a kinship with these people. They are also correct to identify, within the orbit of secular science, an anti-theistic mindset. Richard Dawkins is one person for whom evidence for the evolutionary theory is inescapably bound to an anti-theistic crusade. <br /><br />What confessionally Reformed believers need to understand is that young earth creationism has its origin in a theological movement at odds with Reformed theology. Our Reformed forefathers had a different approach to these questions and were surprisingly far more conciliatory to the possibilities of an old-earth and some form of evolutionary development. To support this claim, I would appeal to the Princeton theologians, Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield. In terms of Dutch Reformed theology I would mention Herman Bavinck. Even though the evidence in Bavinck's day was scant, Bavinck was hospitable to aspects of evolutionary theory. In his essay, "Evolutie," he wrote, "For the fact that there is evolution, provided it is not restricted to mechanical motion and to chemical combination and separation, is demonstrated by every organism that is born and dies, and by the history of nations and of humanity . . . Therefore the species which we currently assume in the world of plants and animals certainly do not coincide with those which were called into existence in the beginning by the creative power of God."<br /><br />I pray for a day when confessionally Reformed theologians and confessionally Reformed scientists can sit at a table, without mentally excommunicating the other, and humbly and charitably discuss faith-science questions, possibly even concocting a theologically sound, critically realist methodology for harvesting the fruit of science. Naturalism and other metaphysical presuppositions need to be exposed, but the facts need to be accounted for. This is what Hodge, Warfield, and Bavinck strove to do. Somewhere along the way this project was hijacked and we've lost an important component of our heritage. <br /><br />Bill DeJong<br />Hamilton, ONBill DeJongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-71844781120444193092011-10-25T11:00:12.719-07:002011-10-25T11:00:12.719-07:00Thank you for commenting on this study. When I fir...Thank you for commenting on this study. When I first read the Barna report, it prompted self-reflection on my own experience in high school, college, etc., where I saw so many lose interest in the faith for all the reasons listed. Why didn't I follow step? I still find this question difficult to answer, but I do thank God for His faithfulness.<br /><br />I highly appreciate your call to semper reformanda. In the last paragraph, I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to fellowship and constructive dialogue. The general hostility to discussion on all sides needs to be abandoned in favor of Christian humility. Philippians 2 comes to mind, not least for its exposition on Adam.<br /><br />Jon Baker<br />Las Vegas, NVChemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.com