tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20041978006182345612024-03-25T17:01:03.126-07:00Reformed AcademicA moderated collaborative forum for Canadian Reformed (and other) students and academics to engage issues of Christianity and culture. <i>Note:</i> Please see our <a href="http://goo.gl/uJdsm"><u>introductory post</u></a> if you're new here. The editors of <i>Reformed Academic</i> are not responsible for the opinions expressed by contributors.
<br><br><i>Inactive (archive only) since 2017.</i>Reformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-44838795860653653322017-12-23T19:20:00.001-08:002017-12-23T19:20:33.886-08:00Why I Am Not An Evangelical (Book Review)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfaS9T_8CDZwDY_WR_jfHiaCD3lFe25oTyFt7EL6Jc5EklGJl6b1Wd5qlcZNm1Bztnju8Rs_I7ZGrWY_dZme6RUvzBS453jKboluTH4MWc6vLn1NcrIvzbZTMJxU2KgqE028DMwyL2MJ0/s1600/hres.9781498238755.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1067" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfaS9T_8CDZwDY_WR_jfHiaCD3lFe25oTyFt7EL6Jc5EklGJl6b1Wd5qlcZNm1Bztnju8Rs_I7ZGrWY_dZme6RUvzBS453jKboluTH4MWc6vLn1NcrIvzbZTMJxU2KgqE028DMwyL2MJ0/s320/hres.9781498238755.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
A review of Keith C. Sewell, <i>The Crisis of Evangelical Christianity: Roots, Consequences, and Resolutions</i> (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016).<br />
<br />
by Ryan McIlhenny<br />
<br />
When asked why he was not a Christian, the impenetrably erudite Bertrand Russell said it was because Christianity lacked the evidence needed for him to give his personal assent. Russell clearly demonstrated his hostility to the knowledge of God as described in Romans 1. William Connolly’s argument in <i>Why I am not a Secularist</i> centres on the fact that secularism had itself become a kind of intolerant religion, of which Connolly, an atheist, wanted no part. Obviously, he missed the opportunity to consider the religion-in-all-of-life thesis in the Kuyperian tradition. My answer to the question as to why I’m not an evangelical—yes, I’ve been asked—includes not only the very narrow image of Christianity constructed by Evangelicalism but also what seems to be the insurmountable problems inherent to it that go beyond doctrine. Those who feel somewhat uncomfortable with the mystique of Evangelicalism, its less-than complete picture of the richness of biblical Christianity, may find partial relief in Keith Sewell’s <a href="https://wipfandstock.com/the-crisis-of-evangelical-christianity.html"><i>The Crisis of Evangelical Christianity</i></a>, a book that traces the historical origins and reductionist tendencies of Evangelicalism. Sewell retired as professor of history at Dordt College in 2012.<br />
<br />
The issue is not so much the word <i>evangel</i> (or <i>evangelist</i>), referring simply to the good news of the gospel of Christ and those who carry forth that message. The problem comes when an otherwise adequate descriptor is Jekyll-and-Hijacked into a corrupted “ism” and whether its basic content can be redeemed at all. Most “isms” are somewhat elusive, defined by a constellation of emphases. David Bebbington’s “quadrilateral of priorities”—biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism, and activism—remains the most helpful and definitive source for defining Evangelicalism. Much of Sewell’s study focuses on the biblicist aspect of Bebbington’s priorities, how different uses of the Bible came to shape the long history of Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism came into being around the time of the Protestant Reformation. Those who were labeled <i>Protestant</i>, including the followers of Martin Luther, referred to as <i>Evangeliche</i>, sought to recover the authority of the one who alone made sinners right before a holy God. This required a turning away from the dictates of Rome in order to return to the authority of scripture, the only infallible source by which true faith is found.<br />
<br />
When the accoutrements of Rome had been stripped away, believers found themselves alone with God’s word. Protestants developed three approaches to the Bible’s teachings—the corrective, the regulative, and the directive. Adherents of the corrective type proposed that any religious activity was permissible, Sewell writes, “<i>unless it was expressly contrary to biblical teaching and example</i>” (29). The “regulative” approach, best represented by Ulrich Zwingli, held that “<i>whatever had no explicit warrant in Scripture had no authorized place in the doctrine and life of the church</i>” (30). The directive perspective, inspired by the work of John Calvin, sought “to understand each passage in scripture in terms of scriptural principle distilled from the whole span of the canonical writings” (35). The “great strength of the directional outlook,” which Sewell unabashedly identifies with, “is that it exemplifies an understanding of biblical authority <i>that makes possible the application of general biblical principles in circumstances unanticipated by the biblical writers</i>” (36). The Bible is a compilation of various ways in which God communicates the story of salvation to his people; it is an instrument used by the Holy Spirit to shape the heart of those who come to believe, which then directs the formulations of theology proper.<br />
<br />
An important aspect of Evangelicalism slightly muted in Sewell’s study is the place of the individual’s encounter with scripture—and hence God. Sewell notes that Bebbington’s doctrinal emphases can be boiled down even further to a subject-object relationship: the emotional experience of the believer (subject) in his or her encounter with God’s word (object). The strand of Protestantism influenced by German pietism, Wesleyan perfectionism, and the “new methods” of Finneyite revivalism, further developed the Evangelical ethos, especially in the way that it eventually drove a wedge between the head and the heart. By the nineteenth century, the scales tipped in favour of the latter over the former. The true knowledge of God that came through an intensely independent reading of scripture moved these emerging Evangelicals toward a more constricting chapter-and-verse biblicism where emotionally-charged “private interpretations” became the authority that confirmed true conversion. To say it differently, the Bible was the source of true religion, but that which confirmed true faith was the sincerity of the heart. Evangelicalism seemed to codify (and copyright) what it meant to have a true conversion experience. The consequence of the individual’s unmediated interpretation of God’s word has been to force scripture to say something that it does not, failing to understand scripture on its own terms. And, ironically, for “all the ‘battle for the Bible’ rhetoric,” Sewell says, “large portions of evangelical rank and file are surprisingly ignorant of [the Bible’s] actual content” (53).<br />
<br />
On this note, Sewell’s study could have been aided by a brief discussion on the doctrine of divine revelation. God reveals his specific plan of salvation to the people he has called out of the world. This is known as “special” or “particular” revelation. At the same time, God reveals himself generally in all of creation to all of humanity. Evangelicals often fail to see the relationship between these two modes of communication, neglecting what could be a richer understanding of God and his magnificent work of redemption. In particular, they fail to see what is common to both—namely, God’s revelation of himself. The pious Evangelical who willfully restricts the knowledge of God to personal salvation not only relegates or devalues God’s self-revelation in creation but also neglects creation itself, minimizing the good that remains in creation and losing sight of the promise of cosmic redemption and the place that God has for believers—as God wills through them—in their role as agents of reconciliation. The reduction of biblical Christianity to personal salvation, ignoring the mysteries in creation to be uncovered, tends toward a kind of intellectual separatism. The Evangelical mind has rarely been able to sustain a robust intellectual response to the challenges of modern thought, especially, as Sewell points out, higher criticism or naturalistic evolution. Not even the more intellectually engaged Neo-Evangelical has been able to do this.<br />
<br />
Sewell points out that the directional approach to the Bible allows for an integral understand of the role of the gospel in all of life and challenges dualistic thinking in which an aspect of the created order either stands on an equal level to God or above him. It challenges assumptions not guided by a radically biblical motive. Evangelicals seem to engage studies outside of scripture strictly for apologetic purposes, not to explore the depths of the knowledge of God, failing thereby to understand creation in its proper place. Creation can never be severed from the Creator. The meaning that humans derive as they interact with creation is relationally dependent on the Creator. The biologist, for instance, who looks at the biotic aspect life, cannot reduce the entirety of the cosmos to that single way of being, since all the ways of being that make up the cosmos are creationally interdependent and ultimately dependent on a transcendent Creator. Even the discipline of theology, Sewell writes, as part of creational cultivation—i.e., doctrinal formations made by biblical scholars—is done in submission to the Creator.<br />
<br />
While I would agree with Sewell’s assessment, I think he needs to go a bit further. For instance, if, as Sewell claims, the knowledge of scripture is lacking, wouldn’t an understanding of the doctrine of salvation be equally deficient? Would the average Evangelical be able to articulate what is meant by justification by faith <i>alone</i>? What is a reduction, if one doesn’t know much about the thing being reduced? It seems that Evangelicalism’s focus is not so much on the doctrinal tenets of true faith, but on the sincerity of an emotional experience, which determines the meaning of scripture. Furthermore, I am a bit unclear as to whether Sewell’s alternatives—including reforming corporate worship, biblical scholarship, and the Christian’s role in public life—to the crisis of Evangelicalism are offered to save it or send it to the theological dustbin. In other words, would it continue as Evangelicalism if Sewell’s more consistently Calvinistic alternative were to be employed? An answer to this question would require examining Evangelicalism from a different angle.<br />
<br />
Sewell is right to say that Bebbington has certainly provided a very helpful definition for understanding Evangelicalism. But I would add that it does not include the corresponding social and cultural features—individualism, separatism, and consumerism—that have likewise contributed to both the mood and identity of Evangelicalism. These tenets have been largely overlooked by Christian intellectuals. What gives life to the biblicism, activism, and conversionism, in particular (not so much the crucicentrism, other than the emotive nature of it), is the hyper-individualism or hyper-democratization shaped by the consumerism of the modern world. This is not to say that tools of consumerism (e.g., methods of communication, from Gutenberg’s printing press to Facebook and Twitter) should be abandoned. Martin Luther’s success came in large part because of his use of the newly invented printing press, although not in a market context. The great revivalist George Whitefield utilized the innovations in print culture to reach a wider audience at a time when the modern economy was in its infancy. Radio preachers and later televangelists used more modern forms of communication for similar ends. These modes of communication have been the foundational infrastructure of a commercial-based society. Used appropriately, such technologies, regardless of their role in creating an integrated economy, can be very helpful. Thus I argue that the development of Evangelicalism has been intertwined with the development of modern capitalism.<br />
<br />
Yet by neglecting the history of capitalism—consumer capitalism—in the overall history of Evangelicalism, scholars (including Sewell) miss another important crisis: the danger of prioritizing the tastes of consumers over the truths of the gospel. Fickle individualism is a common element in both consumerism <i>and</i> Evangelicalism. And the question is what feeds the capriciousness, the consumerism or the doctrinal emphases, the latter of which have no connections with ecclesiastical authority? A consumer culture is interested in what sells. It is not bound to the preservation of truth. Hipster Neo-Evangelicalism, the latest in an attempt to be culturally relevant, does not and will not move the church closer to unity since it is beholden to the rapid changes endemic to consumer capitalism. Because it is directed not by individual pietism (of whatever kind) but by individual taste, Evangelicalism will also resist consensus on the Bible’s teachings.<br />
<br />
The question, then, is whether a theological reform can be accomplished without addressing these largely neglected social and cultural features. Would it still be Evangelicalism? But consider a different question: how devastating would it be to abandon the term all together? Perhaps it would encourage believers to remember the only name to which they are confessionally bound:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Why are you called a Christian?</i><br />
<i>Because I am a member of Christ by faith and thus share in his anointing, so that I may as prophet confess his name, as priest present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him, and as king fight with a free and good conscience against sin and the devil in this life, and hereafter reign with him eternally over all creatures.</i><br />
Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 12 (Q/A: 32)</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJTOuJ5wt3HctmcSHRSKs6yJnBizjMicyCql37T_2kRq3oL2KW5fC_D35QDNA377fdq8uIB1MZtZhOrMbM5vdPRLdlWPFmuhkcwR68heD-XxqYP9_Tu0Bk9HclV83790Ddw6rZDzM0Cag/s1600/s200_ryan.mcilhenny.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJTOuJ5wt3HctmcSHRSKs6yJnBizjMicyCql37T_2kRq3oL2KW5fC_D35QDNA377fdq8uIB1MZtZhOrMbM5vdPRLdlWPFmuhkcwR68heD-XxqYP9_Tu0Bk9HclV83790Ddw6rZDzM0Cag/s1600/s200_ryan.mcilhenny.jpg" /></a>Ryan C. McIlhenny, PhD (University of California, Irvine) is associate professor of liberal arts at Geneva College (Shanghai) and the author of <a href="http://www.fallscitypress.com/reforming-the-liberal-arts"><i>Reforming the Liberal Arts</i></a> (Beaver Falls, PA: Falls City Press, 2017).Reformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-53576431610812772592016-10-13T08:51:00.001-07:002016-10-13T08:51:11.449-07:00Christianity, Science, and Honesty (Waterloo, Monday 17 October)<i>We wish to note an upcoming public lecture of interest to many of our readers.</i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Christianity, Science, and Honesty</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;">Monday 17 October 2016</div><div style="text-align: center;">6:00-7:30pm</div><div style="text-align: center;">University of Waterloo (PHY 150, Physics Building)</div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Refreshments will be served.</i></div><br />
In light of modern science, atheists like Richard Dawkins accuse Christianity of being dishonest. Instead of looking at evidence, he says, religious people have their conclusions “in advance” from a “holy book.” Is this criticism valid? Is there something intellectually dishonest about Christian faith? Drawing on Thomas F. Torrance’s “modalities of reason” for different objects of inquiry, this talk argues that we may be intellectually honest toward both God and scientific inquiry: science self-critically attends to the physical world, and theology self-critically attends to the divine Word–neither gets anywhere when it becomes skeptical about the existence of its own “object” of inquiry. Christian faith is no more dishonest about God than science is dishonest about the existence of the universe. Each enterprise simply finds itself encountered by its “object” and is self-critical in view of that object.<br />
<br />
SPEAKER: <b>Mark McEwan</b> lives in Surrey, BC with his wife, Krystal. He is the Project Development Officer for the CSCA’s “Local Chapters Project,” and his office is at Trinity Western University, where he is working to complete a Master’s degree in Theological Studies. He has worked at TWU as an instructor, and he teaches classes occasionally in the areas of apologetics and Christianity & culture. In addition to being a certified Electrician, Mark is qualified to teach physical sciences and mathematics at the secondary level. His academic interests include epistemology, philosophy, apologetics, and the fruitful interaction of science and theology. He feels especially called to serve Christ by encouraging responsible thinking in matters of theology, science, and especially with respect to interactions between the two.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/966223266822668/">Facebook Event Page</a> | <a href="http://www.csca.ca/events/event/mcewan-uwaterloo-2016/">Event Page on CSCA website</a>Reformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.com0Waterloo, ON, Canada43.470683048024291 -80.54189078092048243.46996304802429 -80.543151280920483 43.471403048024293 -80.540630280920482tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-83829993226486443712016-09-15T16:00:00.000-07:002016-09-15T16:00:03.347-07:00McGrath, “Overcoming the Faith and Science Divide”While <i>Reformed Academic</i> has been quiet lately, we have remained active in thinking about our faith and science. This 18-minute <i>Q Ideas</i> lecture by Alister McGrath entitled “Overcoming the Faith and Science Divide” encourages Christians — office bearers in particular — to interact with scientists, recognizing the compatibility of a Christian worldview and science.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_pCK8jo2JkM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_pCK8jo2JkM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div><br />
The lecture video also can be viewed on <a href="http://208.106.253.109/video/overcoming-the-faith-and-science-divide.aspx" target="_blank">the <i>Q Ideas</i> site</a>, or at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pCK8jo2JkM" target="_blank">this YouTube link</a>. More of Alister McGrath’s presentations can be seen at <a href="http://alistermcgrath.weebly.com/online-media.html" target="_blank">his official site</a>. Reformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-63153786258060830142015-10-28T06:00:00.000-07:002015-10-28T06:00:03.298-07:00Clarion and Creation Science<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinmZ7jTgTmXEkvh0Eyz79QsE9T2QSCWITHqiwF4WWFatyVCil643LVWyOK5enJ9JfA6yRmaHJY1pi4ohM6Hv2RScG69l833M6eXcutaxFCYb9ERCkddROsaxyI_3wo5_GfFavbdxuxZZU/s1600/clarlogo4cp_500x181.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="71" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinmZ7jTgTmXEkvh0Eyz79QsE9T2QSCWITHqiwF4WWFatyVCil643LVWyOK5enJ9JfA6yRmaHJY1pi4ohM6Hv2RScG69l833M6eXcutaxFCYb9ERCkddROsaxyI_3wo5_GfFavbdxuxZZU/s200/clarlogo4cp_500x181.png" width="200" /></a></div><i>Clarion</i> describes itself as “The Canadian Reformed Magazine.” This does not mean, it is true, that it is the official denominational magazine of our churches. Nevertheless, many a reader, both at home and abroad, considers it as such. And the magazine itself admits that, “with contributions coming mostly from our own ministers, it endeavours to provide Reformed articles, aimed primarily at our Canadian/American Reformed church membership.” It is not surprising, therefore, that various readers tend to give it an official status. In other words, whatever <i>Clarion</i>’s editors and writers appear to stand for is, for them, what the Canadian Reformed Churches stand for.<br />
<br />
Not all <i>Clarion</i>’s articles deal with theology, of course. A good deal of attention has also been devoted in recent years to such subjects as the relation between faith and science and especially to the controversy about the interpretation of Genesis 1, the age of the earth, the extent of the flood, and similar matters. As far as we know, <i>Clarion</i> does not have an <i>official</i> position on these issues, and in the past it did accept articles from various perspectives within the Reformed tradition. For the last six years or so this is no longer the case. Only articles promoting young-earth creationism are published, the rest is being censored. (It was this change in policy that led us to the establishment of our blog in 2009.)<br />
<br />
We did not cease, however, in our attempts to publish in <i>Clarion</i> as well. The reputation of our churches is important to us and we want to show to the readers of <i>Clarion</i> that not all members of our churches are creation-scientists or approve of the questionable manner in which this issue is sometimes promoted in <i>Clarion</i>. More importantly, we are anxious to reach those among our church members who depend for their information largely on what is published in <i>Clarion</i>, and show them that the teachings in this magazine on these specific matters are often neither biblical nor in accordance with Reformed teachings. We fear, in fact, that, not least because of the policy of <i>Clarion</i>, our churches are more and more sliding into a literalistic, fundamentalist view of both the Bible itself and of the relationship between Scripture and modern science. Various articles to warn against such a slide have been posted on our blog, but we fear that some of the readers of <i>Clarion</i> may not have access to the blog, or have been taught that it cannot be trusted.<br />
<br />
Our repeated attempts to publish letters or articles in <i>Clarion</i> have all been fruitless, however. The latest such attempt was made in connection with an article by the Rev. Klaas Stam, a frequent advocate of young-earth creationism, in the September 25, 2015 issue. Because we are convinced that the teachings promoted in this article give rise to some serious questions, one of us sent an article to <i>Clarion</i> in response. When the editor replied once again that he “must decline to publish it” and did not respond to further letters from us, we at last decided to post it on the blog. We sincerely hope that it may contribute to a serious, informed, and balanced discussion among us of the policies which <i>Clarion</i> — and by implication our churches? — is following. We also hope very much that the one-sided policy by <i>Clarion</i> will be reconsidered.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
The following article was submitted to <i>Clarion</i>, but was refused. See above.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>THE BIBLE AND ‘CREATION SCIENCE’</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>by Freda Oosterhoff</b></div><br />
What follows is inspired by Rev. Klaas Stam’s article ‘Bible and Science: More than a book review’ in <i>Clarion, </i>September 25, 2015. Stam introduces a book here by the well-known American author Henry Morris (1918-2006). Morris is one of the fathers of scientific creationism (or creation science). With John C. Whitcomb, Jr., he wrote <i>The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications</i> (1961) — a book that played a major role in establishing creation science as we know it. The book that Stam introduces is a different work by Morris, namely his <i>Science and the Bible</i> of 1986, an update of an earlier edition.<br />
<br />
Stam speaks well of Morris and heartily recommends his book to the readers of <i>Clarion</i>. He admits that perhaps a question could be raised about Morris’s use of the Bible, at least in one case, but concludes that that is a theological matter which does not touch upon the essence of the book and therefore can be ignored. After all, as Morris wrote, “The purpose of this book…is to win people to a genuine faith in Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God, and the Bible as the Word of God, and to help strengthen the faith of those who already believe” (from the book’s Preface, quoted by Stam). And indeed, who would not applaud such a goal?<br />
<br />
The important thing is of course whether Morris accomplishes this purpose, and on that point there are serious questions. I am not referring now to his scientific theories, except to say that not only unbelieving scientists but also various orthodox scholars, including Reformed ones, disagree with Morris and other creation scientists on their scientific ideas. This should be well-known among us. In earlier years <i>Clarion</i> itself has written about it. I am sorry that Stam does not acknowledge this, but again, it is not my main concern at this time. What I do want to draw attention to is Morris’s use of the Bible and, in that connection, to serious objections that can be and indeed have been raised against that aspect of his work. In outlining some of these objections I will refer to work by the late professor Jaap Kamphuis (1921-2011), a Dutch theologian of undoubted orthodoxy who for several years taught at the theological seminary in Kampen.<br />
<br />
I will be referring to a number of articles Kamphuis wrote on the topic in the Reformed magazine <i>De Reformatie</i>. He begins the series with a review of Morris’s study <i>The Twilight of Evolution</i>, published in 1963 (<i>De Reformatie</i>, Oct. 18, 1969). Admittedly this is not the book Stam refers to in <i>Clarion</i>, but since Morris’s views had, as far as I know, not really changed over the years, we may assume that Kamphuis’s criticisms apply to both books — at least as far as his main ideas are concerned.<br />
<br />
<b>Morris’s use of the Bible</b><br />
<br />
Kamphuis makes clear that he of course agrees with Morris’s ultimate aim: the defence of Scripture. He further declares himself to be, again like Morris, an absolute ‘anti-evolutionist’ and he agrees with him on a number of other points. But there is criticism as well. While admitting that Morris’s respect for Scripture is not to be doubted, Kamphuis concludes that nevertheless he often <i>uses</i> the Bible ‘irreverently’ (<i>oneerbiedig</i>) — namely by mis-employing Bible texts to confirm his anti-evolutionist arguments. By doing so, Kamphuis argues, he cuts the branch on which he himself is sitting, namely the infallibility of the Bible.<br />
<br />
For example, Morris describes the steps of the water cycle — from the evaporation of ocean waters through the process of condensation, rain, the refreshment of the earth, and then finally back to the oceans — with reference, for each step, to a specific Bible text. (To illustrate briefly: for the evaporation of the ocean water he refers to Ps. 135:7, its move to the land to Eccl. 1:6, its condensation to Prov. 8:26, its formation into water drops and clouds, to Job 26:8, and so on: 7 steps and 7 isolated Bible texts in all.) His aim? To prove, in essence, that the Bible teaches modern science and is a reliable scientific textbook. Meanwhile the true message of Scripture, Kamphuis points out, remains hidden, namely the proclamation of God’s majesty as displayed in the work of his hands, which the texts that Morris quotes <i>in fact</i> proclaim.<br />
<br />
There are other and even stranger examples of Morris’s objectionable use of the Bible, such as his teaching that Satan personally discovered the evolution theory (and that he used it as a justification of his rebellion against God), as well as the statement that by divine providence verse 8 of Psalm 118 is the central verse of the Bible. (Morris does not seem to have realized that the Bible books were not originally divided into chapters and verses, or that the present sequence of the Bible books does not correspond to their original sequence.) Kamphuis calls this sort of argumentation ‘juggling’ (<i>goochelen</i>) and suggests that it is as harmful to the Christian faith as the theory of evolution.<br />
<br />
But quite apart from these special cases, Morris’s <i>entire approach</i>, Kamphuis says, is dangerous. The Bible speaks to us about our creation, the depth of our fall into sin, and the redemption we have in Christ Jesus; this is altogether different from attempting to prove that it serves to ‘confirm natural laws which are beyond all doubt’ (Kamphuis, p. 23). They are of course only beyond all doubt, as Kamphuis adds between parentheses, until hey appear to be wrong after all! Indeed, he concludes, Morris’s type of ‘exegesis’ does nothing at all to strengthen the Christian position against evolutionism; quite the contrary. Moreover, it makes our belief in the infallibility of the Bible dependent on our ongoing success in proving that the teachings of Scripture are in agreement with modern laws of nature.<br />
<br />
<b>The extent of the Flood</b><br />
<br />
So much for the review proper. In subsequent editions of <i>De Reformatie</i> (see especially those of Nov. 22 and Nov. 29, 1969) Kamphuis turns to another aspect of scientific creationism, namely its defence of the global extent of the Genesis flood. This is a major argument in supporting its belief that the earth is quite young — some 6,000 to 10,000 years in age, rather than the billions of years acknowledged by most scientists. According to creation-science most of the geological features of the entire earth have been shaped by a global Noahic flood which took place some 5,000 years ago.<br />
<br />
Of course, the account in Genesis 7 and 8 seems at first glance to support the idea of a global flood. It states that every living thing that moved on the face of the earth was wiped out and that all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered with water. Is Morris, and creation science in general, not right in stressing the flood’s universality? Kamphuis does not think so. He points out that Abraham Kuyper already dealt with this matter and, with reference to several Bible texts from both the Old and the New Testament, showed that the expression ‘the entire world’ in the Bible very often refers simply to the world as known to the human author. For example, when it says in John 12:19 that ‘the whole world’ followed Jesus this does not mean that the inhabitants of the entire earth, including for example the Americas, knew and followed him. It simply refers to the part of the world that came into contact with Jesus. And so in the Genesis account also the expression ‘the entire earth’ may well refer to only that part of the earth that was known to Noah. (For other examples of the limited usage of this phrase in the Bible see, <i>inter alia</i>, Gen. 41:57, John 21:25, Lamentations 4:12, 1 Kings 4:34, Rom. 1:8, Rom. 10:18 — and there are many more.) An additional argument against the flood’s global extent is that Genesis 7 and 8 seem to suggest that Ararat was among the highest mountains, although we know of many mountains elsewhere that far exceed Ararat in height.<br />
<br />
This pre-occupation with the scientific accuracy and up-to-dateness of the Bible at the same time threatens to close our eyes to the truth, Kamphuis points out, that in the flood the Lord brought <i>covenant judgment</i> upon the earth. And also to the teaching that the flood must be seen as symbolizing baptism (1 Peter 3:21). How much do we miss when studying God’s Word by concentrating on its assumed agreement with modern science?<br />
<br />
<b>Where do we go from here?</b><br />
<br />
Both Kuyper and Kamphuis mention further difficulties, exegetical and otherwise, to which belief in a truly global flood would give rise. They are very much worth considering and I wish I could mention them. I am in danger, however, of running out of space and still need to make some concluding remarks, so I will have to refrain. I will try to be brief in my conclusions.<br />
<br />
Firstly. Creation science is very popular among us Canadian Reformed people today and I fully understand why. Years ago I myself turned to it when desperately looking for a defence of the biblical faith against the claims of atheistic scholarship. Arguments like those used by Kamphuis and Kuyper, as well as Bavinck, Aalders, Schilder, and many other scholars of various professions — all of them anti-evolutionists! — convinced me, however, that Morris and his allies could not help me. Study of science and of the history of science had the same effect, and so did the work of orthodox Christian scholars both outside and within our church community who valiantly tackled the religious implications of the theory of evolution itself.<br />
<br />
Secondly. I also more and more came into contact with fellow-believers who shared my concerns, and I learned from them that scientific creationism can be as much of a danger as atheistic evolutionism. We are usually told that the teaching of evolution in our secondary schools must be avoided at all costs and that our students must be immunized against it by being taught scientific creationism. I know that this helps some, but I also know that others, those who read perhaps more critically and/or are better acquainted with actual modern science, are in danger of losing their faith when they learn that creation science, although it claims to be biblical, does not solve their problems but rather increases them. My question is: hasn’t this group been left in the lurch? I am also afraid that ‘outsiders’ who are drawn by the gospel will hesitate to join the church if they are told to believe what creation science teaches.<br />
<br />
Thirdly. In the past, Reformed theologians tended openly to deal with the difficulties raised by a literalistic reading of Genesis. Calvin himself did so, for example with his theory of accommodation, and as I already mentioned, later theologians have followed his example. They have not necessarily solved every problem, but they have made serious attempts and shown Christian scientists that they are not alone after all. Even more importantly, they have assured them and their students that the certainty of God’s promises for us does not depend on our ability to balance biblical ‘prooftexts’ with the findings of modern science.<br />
<br />
Fourthly. It is high time, I am convinced, to issue warnings against an <i>inerrantist</i> view of the Bible, one that has, unfortunately, been much promoted among us in recent years. The traditional Reformed belief has always been that the Bible is <i>infallible</i>, meaning that it is altogether trustworthy, containing all that we need to know ‘in this life, to his glory and our salvation’ (Belg. Conf., art. 2; see also art. 7). <i>Inerrantism</i> on the other hand teaches that the Bible is without any factual errors in the modern-scientific meaning of that term; that it contains no ‘mistakes’ in quotations, no ‘discrepancies’ in for example genealogies, and no ‘errors’ of memory, of grammar, of word choice, of historical and scientific information and description, and so on. According to inerrantists, the Bible can be <i>proven</i> to be accurate, again in the modern-scientific meaning of that term. Creation scientists need this to support their theories. But is such a Bible, one that is in fact first and foremost a system of ‘objective scientific truths’, the same as the Scriptures we receive as God’s covenant message to us? To ask this question is to answer it.<br />
<br />
So let us please follow the example of our ancestors and freely and openly talk again about these matters, trying to help each other. You may ask if such a discussion is not risky? No doubt it is, but ignoring the difficulties or covering them up with fallacious arguments is, as I have been arguing, far riskier still.Reformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.com11Hamilton, ON, Canada43.250020800000009 -79.86609140000001642.509958300000008 -81.156984900000012 43.990083300000009 -78.57519790000002tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-67127400284485549582014-05-17T21:00:00.000-07:002015-11-11T07:51:06.736-08:00Van Bekkum Responds to Canadian Critics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9bZYDO5DSxXImAaE2oItvYV6jZ-ovf0ymGJ5RmhoLR23IiQa6rXwCFhqCmuJRqHSKDSvxccIAT9Gb88r-MIJXVNgLhq7iW3k9eru0fYmWwVjP0sIwXNZ-iamqjvkpgJGCgfVaLY66Uwk/s1600/KoertVanBekkum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9bZYDO5DSxXImAaE2oItvYV6jZ-ovf0ymGJ5RmhoLR23IiQa6rXwCFhqCmuJRqHSKDSvxccIAT9Gb88r-MIJXVNgLhq7iW3k9eru0fYmWwVjP0sIwXNZ-iamqjvkpgJGCgfVaLY66Uwk/s200/KoertVanBekkum.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
In recent years, Synods from the Canadian Reformed Churches and the Free Reformed Churches (Australia), as well as popular writings in our church papers, have often expressed concern with the writings of one particular professor at the Theological University in Kampen, namely <a href="https://www.tukampen.nl/medewerkeronline/kvanbekkum" target="_blank">Koert van Bekkum</a>, objecting to his approach to Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). Dr. van Bekkum has written a response to the ecclesiastical concerns, which can be found <a href="https://db.tt/bDO9dpp7" target="_blank">here</a>. Although at <i>Reformed Academic</i>, it has not been our focus to interact with developments in and with respect to the Netherlands, we appreciate his response, and find ourselves in much of what he says.<br />
<br />
Part of the background of his 13-page piece includes the fact that this past January, the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary (CRTS) hosted a conference on hermeneutics, which included presentations and responses across the Atlantic. The blog of CRTS student Jeremy de Haan featured some <a href="http://sixteenseasons.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/thoughts-and-stories-from-the-conference/">“Thoughts and Stories from the Conference”</a>, and, after some discussion there, van Bekkum introduced <a href="http://sixteenseasons.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/thoughts-and-stories-from-the-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-754">his response today as follows</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Dear Jeremy (and other brothers and sisters in Canada),<br />
<br />
After the conference of last January I had a chat with prof. Van Dam and Rev. De Gelder about my thesis, which had (on purpose) not been the subject of discussion during the CRTS-conference. We shortly discussed the fact that I am not happy with the misconceptions of my views in the Report of the CanRC-subcommittee for the relations with the RCN and in the decisions of the General Synod of Carman 2013. Both brothers invited me to write a reaction in which I offer my response to the ecclesiastical and ecumenical criticism of my thesis. This suggestion was later approved by the Dutch deputies of BBK. Accordingly, I wrote a response.<br />
<br />
So for everyone who might be interested: hereby my response: <a href="https://db.tt/bDO9dpp7" target="_blank">https://db.tt/bDO9dpp7</a>. Just in case we will have some further conversation about biblical hermeneutics in the future.<br />
<br />
Blessings,<br />
<br />
Koert</i></blockquote>
In that spirit, we too look forward to continued academic, ecumenical, and ecclesiastical conversations as we seek to engage God's world in faithfulness to his word. Reformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.com0Hamilton, ON, Canada43.250020800000009 -79.86609140000001642.509958300000008 -81.156984900000012 43.990083300000009 -78.57519790000002tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-36122176665008761192013-07-15T10:15:00.000-07:002013-07-15T10:15:00.024-07:00Science and Secularization<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/images/jackets/9780674026766-lg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/images/jackets/9780674026766-lg.jpg" width="134" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(Harvard UP, 2007)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>Science</i> and <i>Secularization</i> are two words often uttered in the same breath with the assumption that science is responsible for secularization. This misunderstanding had been exposed some time ago by historians of science such as John Hedley Brooke [“Science and Secularization,” in: <i>The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion</i>, ed. Peter Harrison. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 2010, pp. 103-120]. In 2007, Charles Taylor gave us a book-length evaluation of this assumption from a social and broad cultural perspective. His conclusion: secularization is the result of many developments which converged on giving people the freedom to accept or reject the Christian faith. When people turn away from God this shows in everything they do, including science.<br />
<br />
If science has anything to do with secularization, it is that science has been and continues to be used illegitimately as a stick to beat what some consider the dead horse of religion. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/opinion/brooks-the-secular-society.html">Here</a> is a recent review of Charles Taylor’s <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674026766" target="_blank"><i>A Secular Age</i></a> by David Brooks from the New York Times.Jitse van der Meerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02564632094598243894noreply@blogger.com0Ancaster, ON, Canada43.2177791 -79.9872834999999943.1252011 -80.148644999999988 43.310357100000004 -79.825921999999991tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-53554161505335289772013-06-04T15:00:00.000-07:002013-06-04T17:41:53.243-07:00Does Evolution Require New Theology?<div style="clear: left; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://cache.smashwire.com/avatars/OldHorizons-profpic" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Edwin Walhout</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>A recently retired Christian Reformed minister has published an article in his denomination’s magazine <i>The Banner</i>, entitled “<a href="http://www.thebanner.org/features/2013/05/tomorrow-s-theology">Tomorrow’s Theology</a>.” Edwin Walhout <a href="http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/OldHorizons">says</a> on his e-book publishing site, “Being retired from professional life, I am now free to explore theology without the constraints of ecclesiastical loyalties.” His piece suggests vast changes are needed to Christian doctrine as a result of the “established fact” of evolution. The quick response from several in our Canadian Reformed community was to reiterate their warnings against those in our churches who, they say, promote the dangerous idea of “theistic evolution” and advocate the re-interpretation of Scripture on the basis of modern science. After all, they say, this is where those ideas necessarily lead, namely to the questioning, if not outright denial, of the truth of Adam and Eve’s being created in the image of God, originally without sin, subsequently falling into sin, and being expelled from the garden, as well as the denial of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, his virgin birth, his sacrifice, death, resurrection, ascension, and his imminent Second Coming.<br />
<br />
<div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img height="38" src="http://www.thebanner.org/sites/default/themes/custom/logo.png" width="200" /></div>When some of our critics see Walhout in <i>The Banner</i>, they see <i>Reformed Academic</i>. This is understandable, as we also have been talking about evolution, but also disappointing, since we have (we hope) been clear in our support of all Christian doctrines and of the Reformed confessions. Unlike Walhout, we do not argue for the re-interpretation of Scripture (or Christian doctrines) on the basis of science. Rather we call for the interpretation of Scripture with Scripture, central to Reformed Biblical hermeneutics. With respect to the results of modern science regarding so-called “origins” questions, we do acknowledge that there are multiple converging lines of evidence in favour of an ancient cosmos and even for the common ancestry of all living things. Now, especially in the latter case we do not consider this evidence to be incontrovertible proof, and we certainly believe God did something special in creating humankind. We do think it is important to discuss the scientific claims; it will not do to simply dismiss them <i>a priori</i> as invalid. However, we also continue to point out the limits of science, in particular the inability of science to explain the origins of the cosmos, of life, of humanity, of individual humans. (In a <a href="http://goo.gl/kgwqi">March 2012 post</a>, Arnold Sikkema pointed out the validity of historical science, and also distinguished “origin” and “history.” Jitse van der Meer followed this in more detail in <a href="http://goo.gl/ftT58">a subsequent post</a>.) Four years ago <a href="http://goo.gl/Yedzc">we wrote</a>:<br />
<blockquote>We are all in agreement with all of Scripture and the Reformed confessions, including notably that Adam and Eve were real humans, in a real Eden with real trees (including a real tree of the knowledge of good and evil), and upon a real temptation by the real devil in the form of a real snake, really sinned, so there was a real Fall.</blockquote>This Walhout finds outdated, but we have no reason to make any adjustments. Nothing we have written is similar to the questions and denials of Walhout.<br />
<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="105" src="http://www.rscottclark.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RSC-Library1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="200" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">R. Scott Clark</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>In dismantling Walhout’s article, R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, rightly <a href="http://heidelblog.net/2013/05/of-false-dichotomies-science-and-progress-in-theology/">points out</a> (in an article entitled “Of False Dichotomies, Science, and Progress in Theology”) the false dichotomy in the notion that one must either accept a young-earth creationist position (à la Ken Ham and <i>Answers in Genesis</i>) or discard (or at least question) basic Christian doctrines. This dichotomy, incidentally, is one on which popular atheist Richard Dawkins, Walhout, Ken Ham and some CanRC leaders agree. Clark explains that there are several positions which do not require this polarization, identifying a number of other viable alternatives within Christian (even Reformed) orthodoxy which do not take Scripture to require us to take the young-earth view.<br />
<br />
The theological problems in Walhout’s piece are self-evident. Let us identify also a few serious scientific errors Walhout makes. For it appears to us he has engaged in significant extrapolation beyond what the actual claims of modern science are.<br />
<br />
Walhout seems to have conflated evolution and evolution<i><b>ism</b></i> (a distinction we have long attempted to point out but which continues to be studiously ignored by many). On the one hand there is a biological theory of evolution, while on the other hand there is a philosophical / religious worldview of evolution<i><b>ism</b></i>. Evolution<i><b>ism</b></i> assumes (incorrectly) that humanity is fully explained by science within a naturalistic theory of biological evolution. This is said to include human psychology, sociology, reason, morality, and religion. There is no place within this worldview for anything special about humans, such as their being created in God’s image, their covenantal relationship with God, their being recipients of divine revelation; there is no place for spiritual realities, sin, grace, purpose, etc. It is vital to realize that the biological theory of evolution does <i>not</i> settle, or even begin to address, questions of the origin or character of humanity as humanity. Nor does it touch upon the origin or history of the physical cosmos, or the origin of life itself. It can only touch on the biology of organisms including humans. But surely the Christian worldview recognizes that being human is more than having a certain biology. There are indeed scholars who work on evolutionary psychology and evolutionary morality, but human psychology and morality are clearly areas where other forms of knowledge besides the scientific are required. Especially for the Christian, the doctrines of <i>imago Dei</i> and sin are clearly not amenable to scientific studies; these are theological doctrines, which have huge ramifications for human psychology. One also cannot hope to explain all aspects of the human psyche without reference to the clear Biblical teachings regarding the unique position of humans among all creatures on earth, especially in terms of <i>imago Dei</i>, creation, fall, and redemption.<br />
<br />
Walhout seems also to have adopted <b>scientism</b>, the idea that no statement of any sort can be affirmed unless it is scientifically supported. This connects with his thinking that questions regarding human psychology and human morality are fully amenable to scientific inquiry. He suggests that the historicity of the Garden and Fall is doubtful, asking, “Where is the scientific and historical evidence of a pristine origin and expulsion from that Garden?” It apparently fails to occur to him that science and history do not have the epistemological prowess to handle every question. We cannot expect each individual event or person from the distant past to leave physical or biological traces for our current study. And even if they did, science and history still cannot handle every question about these events or persons.<br />
<br />
The way Walhout narrates scientific theory and fact further demonstrates his unfamiliarity with the nature and character of science. He refers to the theory of evolution as “established fact,” and calls for an approach which “embraces scientific insights.” This does not even begin to do justice to how theories function in science. The scientific enterprise is a search for truths regarding created reality; therefore, appealing to “theory as fact” (and speaking of “embracing” it as such) is unscientific, being instead rhetorical or political in nature. True, there are some dogmatic high-priests of scientism, such as Richard Dawkins, who attempt to brow-beat opponents of scientific theories into submission by raucous claims that evolution, or the big bang theory, are proven fact. This only demonstrates our point; such bully tactics are power struggles, not the humble calls for examination of evidence in support of (or opposition to) theories which characterize the true nature of science. If one considers the theory of evolution as simply a “fact,” one has actually displaced and underestimated it. A theory is a vast network of ideas which have moved beyond a preliminary hypothesis to being widely supported from multiple independent lines of evidence. Theories play a role in the recognition of patterns in collected observations, and in organizing and explaining disparate observations, often subsuming theories of more limited scope. Theories also allow for the prediction of future observations and contribute to a broader coherence among a collection of related theories. Similar to this misuse of “fact” is the failed attempt by some to refer to evolution (or the big bang, or heliocentrism) as “only a theory.” <br />
<br />
Walhout speaks of “embracing” a theory (and there is even a book entitled <i>Should Christians Embrace Evolution?</i>). But in fact, scientists do not embrace, or even “believe (in)” theories. Instead, science speaks of considering the evidence for (and against) a theory, and acknowledging the strength of multiple converging lines of evidence. This assessment of scientific theories is a key task of the scientific community as a whole, and cannot be done by ecclesiastical assemblies. This task is open to every scientist regardless of their religious, political, ethnic, geographic, employment, or social context.<br />
<br />
Walhout suggests much of Christian doctrine is in need of overhaul due to what he says is the fact of evolution (which as we have described he extends far beyond the biological theory). We would say that instead of revising theology on the basis of modern science, theology has to focus on what the Scriptures <u><b>do</b></u> teach, and this includes recognising <i>and excising</i> whatever science (or pseudo- or folk-science, or philosophy) theology has taken on, whether its origin is Aristotle, Plato, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Morris, or Ham. Theologians in the past have, on the basis of the science of their day, made illegitimate adjustments to what the Scriptures were claiming. Thomas Aquinas is perhaps the most notorious, for he incorporated Ptolemaic astronomy and Aristotelian physics into Christian doctrine. As a result, at the time of Galileo it was common knowledge that while in our experience there are only the terrestrial elements (earth, water, air, fire), the moon and all the heavenly bodies are perfect spheres made of quintessence. It was further “well known” that the Bible clearly teaches such matters. Calvin, incidentally, took on this Aristotelian view as well in some instances. The story of Galileo and the church has very many aspects, but one was this problematic integration into Scripture of contemporary science. And so removing scientific ideas <i>from</i> our interpretation of Scripture is what ought to be done.<br />
<br />
Much of the way in which many North American evangelicals, including Canadian Reformed believers, see “the creation story” has been significantly influenced by the modern scientific mindset and pseudo-scientific ideas of the creation-science community. This includes a fixation on timing, duration, ages, sequences, and processes.<br />
<br />
Our desire at <i>Reformed Academic</i> is not to create confusion or fear, or to push evolution or old-earth thinking, or to replace the Reformed confessions or historic Christian doctrines. It is to educate and inform and to encourage respectful brotherly dialogue on the connections between academics and the Reformed faith, including (but not limited to) matters of science as they touch on cosmic and life history. And part of this may involve a recognition that some of what we thought the Bible clearly teaches has in fact been a previous scientific or “scientific” idea which we have allowed to creep into our hermeneutical process. The net result should then be a better understanding both of God’s Word and God’s world, which is central to the calling of the Reformed academic, and indeed to that of every believer. Theologians cannot answer every question, and neither can scientists. But praise God that we have both, that they can coexist and sharpen each other in a common quest for understanding and for the advancement of the Kingdom.Reformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.com3Canada56.130366 -106.34677099999999-9.613211 88.41885400000001 90 58.88760400000001tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-64312450839006177132013-05-20T08:30:00.000-07:002013-05-20T08:30:00.303-07:00C.S. Lewis: Apostle to the Sceptics, Defender of the Faith<blockquote>“The more I think about his work, the more I tend to see two C.S. Lewises, who often appear together in the same book and article. One is the Christian rationalist whose arguments are frequently valuable, and who has helped many fellow-Christians and many agnostics to overcome intellectual doubts, but who has to be read critically. The other is the humble Christian believer who subjected his own insights to the authority of the Scriptures, realizing that unless we become like children we cannot enter the Kingdom. But also in his rationalist guise Lewis confessed Christ as his Saviour, and throughout his life he struggled to fulfil the commandment to love God and the neighbour, and to promote the gospel by whatever means he had at his disposal.”</blockquote>This quote is from an article I wrote fifteen years ago, in connection with the 100th anniversary of C.S. Lewis’s birth (<i>Clarion</i>, July 10, 1998). I still stand behind that evaluation and am using the quote as a kind of synopsis of the present article, which is written to remember the 50th anniversary of Lewis’s death. In a sense this article serves as an extension of <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2013/05/mcgrath-lewis.html">the review</a> I posted a few weeks ago of a recent Lewis biography by British theologian Alister McGrath. In that review I focused on some of the reasons for Lewis’s continuing popularity as a Christian writer and apologist but said little about his actual message. I will now attempt to fill that gap, at least as far as is possible in a brief essay. My focus will be on straightforward apologetic and religious works, rather than on worldview issues or on Lewis’s imaginative writings. I hope to turn to those topics on yet another occasion. Although the present essay is not intended as another review of McGrath’s bibliography, I will more than once mention it, but I will refer to Lewis’s own work as well.<br />
<br />
<i>The question of orthodoxy</i><br />
<br />
Lewis has been lauded by many evangelicals and other Christians as a defender of “mere Christianity,” that is, of “the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.” This assessment is confirmed by most of his writings. There are exceptions, however. The most disturbing, in my view, is his attitude toward the Old Testament. While he appears to accept the infallibility of the New Testament and constantly defends it, his explanation of parts of the Old Testament is at times reminiscent of that of the so-called “higher critics.” Best known perhaps is his “symbolic” explanation of the fall into sin (in chapter V of <i>The Problem of Pain</i>, 1940) and of the creation account itself. He accepted a version of evolution, although he did not really like it. But he insisted that he had no religious problems with the theory; his real concern was that it contributed to the “chronological snobbery” of the modern age —namely the belief in constant evolutionary progress, so that the past is necessarily inferior to the present. Lewis’s critical attitude is also evident in his <i>Reflections on the Psalms</i> (1958). Particularly the first few chapters, which deal with judgment and cursing (imprecations) in the psalms, raise questions about his orthodoxy. Strangely enough, much of the rest of the book comes across as orthodox and is both instructive and edifying. Yet another issue that raises objections is Lewis’s belief in purgatory. (He does make clear that he rejects the medieval view and does not see purgatory as punishment for sin but only as a means of purification.)<br />
<br />
In view of the above it may seem strange that most orthodox Christians continue to see Lewis as a reliable defender of the biblical faith. One reason for this attitude is that, unlike the theological “liberals” of his day, Lewis believed in the divine origin of the Bible message, including that of the Old Testament. Another reason, of course, was his valiant and unceasing battle against the opponents of the Christian gospel and the help he thereby gives to those who struggle with conflicts and doubts. His view of the New Testament is orthodox. Ever since his conversion he defended its historicity against biblical critics, and ever since his conversion he proclaimed it to be the gospel of salvation, which had to be believed in all its details. Lewis was a thorough-going supernaturalist. As a critical commentator writes (Richard B. Cunningham, in <i>C.S. Lewis: Defender of the Faith</i>), the gospel that Lewis taught was:<br />
<blockquote>The old story of creation, redemption, and consummation; of incarnation, cross, resurrection, and ascension; of faith, hope, and love; of angels and heaven and devils and hell; of the urgency of decision and the eternal finality of temporal choice. Here [Lewis says] is the good news, the gift that is absolute demand, the answer to the problems of existence. Accept it and live; reject it and die! There is no third way!</blockquote>There is yet another element, the one to which McGrath draws attention. Trying to explain Lewis’s continuing appeal to successive evangelical generations, he writes,<br />
<blockquote>Lewis is seen to enrich and extend faith, without diluting it. In other words, evangelicals tend to see Lewis as a catalyst, who opens up a deeper vision of the Christian faith, engaging the mind, the feelings, and the imagination, without challenging fundamental distinctives…. While this involves a selective reading of Lewis, this does not seem to cause any fundamental concern. Lewis is grafted on to evangelical essentials, engaging weaknesses without compromising strengths.</blockquote>Apparently, then, these evangelicals manage to ignore the unorthodox elements in Lewis’s teachings and to focus on the biblical ones. No doubt, many other Christians follow that approach as well. (Surprisingly, even most of Lewis’s atheistic critics do the same.) We will now look at some of the ways in which Lewis opened up “a deeper vision of the Christian faith.”<br />
<br />
<i>A Christian rationalist</i><br />
<br />
Lewis has been called an “apostle to the sceptics,” and that description is to the point. He himself had been a religious doubter and his autobiography (<i>Surprised by Joy</i>, 1955) shows the extent to which his conversion was influenced by intellectual concerns. Having subscribed to various philosophies and worldviews in attempts to make sense of life and the world, he finally concluded that only Christianity can properly and fully explain the various aspects of human experience. Ever since his conversion in the early 1930s he made it his task to convince others of this truth.<br />
<br />
<center><img height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr9-Y6S5xhW6WDjZ4mVIbr6dBeU7rME85Em4zkIADllc3BuTedZjFxQAQeICFhNYyv5F7SmtjfjevBCWdb8Z40FyiVn-T_W0UCq8027pMdvWcYX5P01BK7oK-UpGzd2mgdSJyZ1KTJZ19u/s320/CS-Lewis2.jpg" width="320" /></center><br />
He does so, for example, in the “Broadcast Talks” and <i>Mere Christianity</i>. What is interesting here, as McGrath points out, is that Lewis does not begin with Christian doctrine or with aspects of Christianity that people fail to understand or that cause them problems. Rather, he begins with human experience and moves from there to the question of the existence of God. In the first chapters of <i>Mere Christianity</i>, for example, he shows how the common human idea of right and wrong, and the common experience of guilt in the case of wrong-doing, can best be explained with reference to the existence of a higher power who is both lawgiver and judge. He gives similar explanations of other experiences, such as desire and longing, arguing that natural desires have a corresponding object, and that God is the ultimate object of the human search for happiness. As he writes in <i>Mere Christianity</i>, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” It is reminiscent of Augustine’s remarks in his <i>Confessions</i>, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds rest in you.” Christianity, then, explains why the world and humankind are the way they are. There is a “fit” between doctrine and life; if one accepts the Christian gospel as true then everything else “falls into place.”<br />
<br />
Lewis uses that argument elsewhere, for example in his paper “Is Theology Poetry?” (1944). Here he specifically compares the worldview of scientific naturalism with Christianity, showing again that the latter alone accounts for what we observe and learn and experience. Christian theology, he argues, can account for science, art, morality and the sub-Christian religions. The naturalistic point of view cannot explain any of these things, not even the phenomenon of science itself. He concludes the paper with the well-known words, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.”<br />
<br />
Another argument Lewis frequently uses against naturalists and other atheists (for example in Chapter 3 of his book <i>Miracles</i>, 1947) is that naturalists base their arguments on the power of human reason but that according to these same naturalists human reason is nothing but the chance product of mindless matter. How then can it be reliable? A similar question had already plagued Charles Darwin, who spoke of the “horrid doubt” that arose in him when considering “whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one,” he asked, “trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” In <i>Miracles</i>, Lewis illustrates the problem by quoting the atheistic evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane, who wrote, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” Lewis calls this “the cardinal difficulty of naturalism.”<br />
<br />
<i>Divine initiative</i><br />
<br />
Lewis relished defending the faith with the help of rational arguments. To call him a Christian rationalist is not to suggest, however, that for him the defence of that faith, and belief itself, were simply matters of external evidence or speculation or logic. Nor did he believe that the initiative in conversion lay with the human being, or that it had been his own reasoning that had brought him to God. It was God who had called him to repentance. Lewis writes about this at large in his autobiography. A central theme in the story of his conversion to theism (which anticipated his return to Christianity by about a year) is that that conversion was not the result of his search for God, but of God’s relentless and compassionate search for him. He had been “compelled to enter.”<br />
<br />
At the same time Lewis shows that an opposite explanation must also be rejected — namely that his turning to God was a matter of wish-fulfilment. That was how Sigmund Freud and other atheists explained the appeal of religion, portraying belief in God as the search for a father figure, and God himself, in McGrath’s words, as a “consoling dream for life’s losers, a spiritual crutch for the inadequate and needy.” It is true, Lewis came to see that God is the ultimate object of the human search for fulfilment, but that insight came after his conversion. For years the existence of a personal God had implied for him not the beginning of personal happiness but the end of his cherished independence, and he fought long and hard to continue “calling his soul his own.” When he finally submitted he was, he writes, very much a dejected and reluctant convert.<br />
<br />
<i>Knowledge by acquaintance</i><br />
<br />
Lewis teaches that if conversion is a gift of grace, so is perseverance in the faith. This is the topic of his lecture “On Obstinacy in Belief” (1955). The central message is that Christian belief is not just a matter of rationality (although it is that too) but also, and especially, of relationship. He refers to Augustine’s distinction between <i>credere Deum esse</i> — to believe that God exists — and <i>credere in Deum</i> — to believe in (or to have faith in) God, that is, in the God who reveals himself. “Believing that God exists” can still be the topic of philosophy and speculative thought; “believing in God” speaks of a personal relationship. It is no longer a matter of argument, but of acquaintance.<br />
<br />
Lewis begins this lecture by saying that critics of Christianity like to contrast the scientific attitude toward evidence with the Christian one. Whereas scientists proportion the strength of their conviction to the evidence, Christians, these critics claim, think it is meritorious to ignore the need for evidence; indeed, to persevere in their belief even in spite of contrary evidence. Scientific knowledge is therefore considered far more secure than the knowledge of faith.* In answering this charge, Lewis remarks that, contrary to the critics’ opinion, evidence plays an important role in a person’s initial conversion. Converts will refer to natural or philosophical evidence, or to the evidence of history, of religious experience, of authority, or to all of them combined. For authority, he adds, is a kind of evidence. “All of our historical beliefs, most of our geographical beliefs, many of our beliefs about matters that concern us in daily life, are accepted on the authority of other human beings, whether we are Christians, Atheists, Scientists, or Men-in-the-Street.”<br />
<br />
But if for new converts external evidence does play an important role, the situation changes, Lewis says, for mature believers. Then the charge that Christians stick to their faith in the teeth of what appears to be contrary evidence is harder to contradict. But Lewis argues that this does not really count against Christianity. An attitude of perseverance in spite of contrary evidence may be objectionable in science, but is appropriate and even indispensable in Christianity. For Christians believe in a personal God whose knowledge of the needs of his creatures far surpasses their own. It therefore is to be expected that the way in which he directs their lives may well be different from what they themselves would desire. Moreover, God establishes a relationship with his people, makes himself known to them and asks them to trust him. Trust is essential in personal relationships and can only grow in situations where there is also room for doubt. It therefore will be tested. And so the Bible in various places reminds readers to expect and indeed give thanks for the trials and temptations they meet. Lewis concludes as follows:<br />
<blockquote>Our opponents, then, have a perfect right to dispute with us about the grounds of our original assent. But they must not accuse us of sheer insanity if, after the assent has been given, our adherence to it is no longer proportional to every fluctuation of the apparent evidence. They cannot of course be expected to know on what our assurance feeds, and how it revives and is always rising from its ashes…. But they can see how the assent, of necessity, moves us from the logic of speculative thought into what might perhaps be called the logic of personal relations. What would, up till then, have been variations simply of opinion become variations of conduct by a person to a Person. <i>Credere Deum esse</i> turns into <i>Credere in Deum</i>. And <i>Deum</i> here is this God, the increasingly knowable Lord.</blockquote><br />
<i>A man for all seasons</i><br />
<br />
For orthodox Reformed believers, and for all who hold to the infallibility of Scripture, Lewis remains a bit of an enigma. He has been called an unorthodox defender of orthodoxy, and that describes him well. The biggest problem remains his critical attitude toward parts of the Old Testament. But as I hope to have made clear, he was not a “liberal” theologian in the common sense of the term. I do not believe, for example, that the ever denied that the Bible, including the Old Testament, proclaims God’s message to humanity, and he appears to have considered knowledge of the Old Testament as necessary for a proper understanding of the gospel. He did so, as he tells us in the <i>Reflections on the Psalms</i>, principally because Jesus himself accepted the Old Testament as revelation, teaching his followers (for example during the journey to Emmaus) that the Psalmists and prophets spoke of him. This clinched the issue for Lewis. It is true that he did not often quote from the Bible, not even from the New Testament. There is also little “proof-texting” in his work (but that, of course, is not necessarily a drawback). Yet he did know the gospel and attempted to live by the gospel message — by “the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.” And he was able to communicate that gospel, inspiring not only believers but also doubters and agnostics; not only lay people but also many an established theologian.<br />
<br />
He did this, as we have seen, by showing that the gospel, and the gospel alone, makes sense of life and of the world; that it explains and satisfies our deepest desires; that it provides us with a much deeper vision of reality than we ever had before. He did it also by reminding us that the gospel is to be taken with great seriousness, that it is the gift that is at the same time “absolute demand.” To illustrate this aspect of his ministry I quote, by way of conclusion, from his sermon “The Weight of Glory”:<br />
<blockquote>It may be possible for each of us to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal…. (The sermon can be found in C.S. Lewis, <i>They Asked for a Paper</i> [London, 1962.] It was preached in Oxford; the date is not given.)</blockquote><br />
Here we have another noteworthy aspect of Lewis’s ministry. Christians often struggle with the question how we are to fulfil our task here on earth. Should our main concern be with the salvation of our souls and of the souls of our neighbours, far and near? Or is that an escapist attitude and are we to concentrate instead on cultural involvement, on “reclaiming the world for Christ”? In other words, should we as Christians focus on being “other-worldly” or “this-worldly”? This was the dilemma that American evangelicals faced in the 1940s and ’50s and that led to the rise of the “new evangelicalism.” Leaders of the movement, as McGrath told us, turned to Lewis for inspiration, not least because he could show them how to escape from a sectarian other-worldliness and to function as a “salt and a light” in the society and culture of their day. But there is always a danger, of course, of making distinctions where none should exist. Perhaps another explanation of Lewis’s continuing relevance (in addition to the ones already mentioned) is his message that the two positions should go hand in hand. This, too, is part of the tradition of “mere Christianity.” As we learn from the history of the early church, it was because believers constantly kept in mind their own and their neighbours’ eternal destiny that they cared for society, helping and comforting the poor, the ill, the dying. It was their belief in heaven that changed the world. In attempting to keep the two aspects in balance, Lewis speaks to questions raised as much by today’s generation as by previous ones. He remains relevant — “a man for all seasons.”<br />
<br />
<hr /><span style="font-size: x-small;">*Modern philosophers of science would place a question mark here. A few years after Lewis delivered this lecture, American philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn published his influential study <i>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i> (1962), wherein he showed that scientists will stick to their paradigm despite the existence of anomalies, and that this tenacity is essential for the progress of science.</span>Frederika Oosterhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06340388418031783192noreply@blogger.com0Hamilton, ON43.250020800000009 -79.86609140000001642.509958300000008 -81.156984900000012 43.990083300000009 -78.57519790000002tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-89284952683552115352013-05-01T07:00:00.000-07:002013-05-01T07:00:00.439-07:00Another Look at C.S. Lewis<div style="text-align: left;"><div style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="C.S. Lewis: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet" border="0" height="320" src="http://files.tyndale.com/thpdata/images--covers/500%20h/978-1-4143-3935-1.jpg" title="C.S. Lewis: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet" width="216" /></div></div>C.S. Lewis died half a century ago, in the fall of 1963. To mark this anniversary, British theologian <a href="http://alistermcgrath.weebly.com/">Alister McGrath</a> has left us a new biography of his famous compatriot.* It is of course not the first Lewis biography. Several had appeared earlier, most of them written by people who had known Lewis personally. McGrath does not belong to that generation. But if this is a drawback, it is, as he points out, also an advantage. Not only can he draw on a much larger corpus of Lewis studies than the earlier biographers, he has also available to him the collected letters of Lewis – some 3500 pages of text – which were published only recently. Moreover, his position enables him to give an account of Lewis’s continuing influence today.<br />
<br />
The description of that influence is among the elements that gives this new biography an added value and will be the topic of the present review. On a future occasion I hope to turn also to McGrath’s treatment of Lewis’s actual “message,” and therefore of his theological and philosophical views as expressed in his apologetic books, his fiction, and often in his scholarly work. The biography sheds light on these aspects of Lewis’s work as well. Indeed, McGrath is well-qualified for the work he has undertaken. A professor of theology, ministry, and education at King’s College in London and author of several works on apologetics, theology, and related subjects, he shares several of Lewis’s interests. There are, he tells his readers, additional ties that connect him with Lewis: both grew up in Ireland, both studied and taught at Oxford, both were atheists at a certain period in their lives, and upon their conversion both rejoined the Anglican Church in which they had been baptized.<br />
<br />
<i>Eccentric genius</i><br />
<br />
McGrath writes that his intention is not to praise or condemn Lewis but to help us understand him. This implies a consideration of both his strong and his weak points. In connection with the latter we get additional information on such matters as Lewis’s relation with his father, with Mrs. Moore, and his often condescending attitude toward women. Although the author does not hesitate to be critical, he also attempts to achieve a balance by looking at things from different angles, and on the whole his treatment is generous. Lewis is shown to have been “eccentric” not first of all because of deficiencies in his character or personal relationships, but because of what he considered his calling as a Christian academic. Contrary to accepted usage, he expressed his Christian convictions in his scholarly work and, what was worse, did not hesitate to write popular works of Christian fiction and of apologetics. According to most of his Oxford colleagues, none of this ought to be done by a reputable academic, and certainly not by an Oxford don. Although a distinguished literary scholar and critic, Lewis was considered an “outsider,” and he was more than once passed over when an Oxford professorship in English literature became available. When he finally did receive a professorship it was given not by Oxford, but by Cambridge, which in 1954 established for him a chair in Medieval and Renaissance English literature. Lewis worked there until shortly before his death on November 22, 1963 – one week before his 65th birthday.<br />
<br />
<i>War-time popularity</i><br />
<br />
Although he gives attention to the scholarly contributions, McGrath focuses especially on Lewis’s work as an apologist and a writer of fiction. Some of these works appeared already in the 1930s, namely <i>The Pilgrim’s Regress</i> (1933) and the first volume of the space trilogy, <i>Out of the Silent Planet</i> (1938). It was his work as a “war-time apologist,” however, that made Lewis widely known as a Christian writer. First among these books was <i>The Problem of Pain</i> (1940), soon followed by the even more popular <i>Screwtape Letters</i> (1942) and by <i>The Abolition of Man</i> (1943).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.harpercollins.com/harperimages/isbn/large/4/9780061350214.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.harpercollins.com/harperimages/isbn/large/4/9780061350214.jpg" width="151" /></a>Lewis became also widely known through the BBC Broadcast Talks which he gave, at the request of the BBC, during the early years of the war. These talks were published between 1942 and 1944 in three separate booklets. A one-volume edited version appeared in 1952 under the title <i>Mere Christianity</i>, which, McGrath tells us, is now often cited as the most influential religious work of the twentieth century. It was not just war-torn England that appreciated Lewis’s Christian writings, they were also well received in North America. His popularity continued in the next decade, not least because of such works as the Narnia Chronicles (1950-1956)<a href="http://www.harpercollinschildrens.com/harperchildrensImages/isbn/large/0/9780060244880.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="173" src="http://www.harpercollinschildrens.com/harperchildrensImages/isbn/large/0/9780060244880.jpg" width="200" /></a> and <i>Mere Christianity</i>. Although it was diminishing, the religious interest that had been awakened during the war and had contributed to Lewis’s popularity continued during much of the 1950s.<br />
<br />
<i>Ebb and flow</i><br />
<br />
That religious interest declined in the following decade, and Lewis’s popularity also began to dwindle in that period. Although it turned out to be only a temporary setback, it was real. Lewis himself seems to have anticipated the loss of his popularity: towards the end of his life he told his secretary that within a few years after his death his name would be forgotten. McGrath suggests various reasons for the decline. For one thing, and perhaps most importantly, the 1960s was the decade of rapid secularization, of the “death of God” movement, and of a widespread conviction that religion was disappearing from the face of the earth. Apologetic works seemed to be losing their relevance. Meanwhile the popularity of Tolkien’s epic fantasy <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> began to overshadow Lewis’s imaginative works. Tolkien’s epic seemed to speak to the problems of the 1960s and ’70s, such as the Cold War and the danger of a nuclear holocaust. All in all, Lewis appeared as a man of the past whose work might have some historical interest but was no longer considered relevant.<br />
<br />
The surprising thing is not that this dip occurred, but that it did not last, and that Lewis is even more widely read today than he was during his life time. McGrath suggests various reasons for this. Lewis had always been more influential in America than in England, and an important role in the resurgence was played by changes in the American evangelical world. Lewis’s earlier influence had been most pronounced among non-evangelical Christians in America. Most evangelicals, still under the influence of fundamentalism, had distrusted him for his lifestyle (especially his smoking and beer-drinking), for aspects of his theology, and for his openness to the world of art, literature, and culture in general. Mid-century, however, saw the rise in America of the “new evangelicalism” which questioned the isolationism and the cultural disengagement of the fundamentalist past and asked for more contact with and more concern for the modern world and modern society. Among the leaders were men like Harold Ockenga, who served several years a president of Fuller Theological Seminary, Carl F.H. Henry, the first editor of <i>Christianity Today</i>, apologist Francis Schaeffer, and evangelist Billy Graham. Fuller Seminary, established in 1947, and <i>Christianity Today</i>, which first appeared in 1956, played a central role in the movement. The new evangelicals, McGrath writes, sought out a number of British writers to help them show the intellectual respectability of Christianity. They first turned especially to John Stott, but by the mid-seventies C.S. Lewis had been rediscovered and was increasingly cited in <i>Christianity Today</i>.<br />
<br />
<i>A paradigm shift</i><br />
<br />
There are other reasons. Among them, McGrath suggests, may well be the change in the general worldview during the second half of the century – the shift from modernism to postmodernism. For one thing, the rise of postmodernism was accompanied by a renewed interest in religion and spirituality. As during the war years, Lewis’s work again met this felt need. Even the rise of the new evangelicalism can perhaps be explained, at least in part, with reference to this shift.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.veritas.org/Uploads/PresenterPictures/24.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.veritas.org/Uploads/PresenterPictures/24.jpg" width="151" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Alister McGrath</td></tr>
</tbody></table>There was also a new interest in non-intellectual aspects of the Christian faith. An important element in Lewis’s come-back, McGrath believes, was that he showed how literature, and especially imaginative literature, could serve the faith. Though his own conversion had, as he himself put it, been essentially “intellectual” and “philosophical,” and though he continued to stress the intellectual aspect, Lewis more and more realized that belief was also a matter of the heart and the emotions. This he made clear in imaginative works like the space trilogy and the Chronicles of Narnia. “Those who initially valued Lewis for his rational defence of the Christian faith,” McGrath writes, “now found themselves appreciating his appeal to the imagination and emotions. Lewis’s multilayered conception of Christianity enabled evangelicals to realise that they could enrich their faith without diluting it, and engage secular culture in ways other than through reasoned argument.”<br />
<br />
Yet another element, McGrath believes, was what he calls “the erosion of denominationalism” in the second half of the century. This was evident not only among evangelicals, he writes, but since the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s also among Roman Catholics. Lewis spoke to this trend as well. Himself a loyal Anglican, he refused to pronounce on denominational issues and divisions. His most influential apologetic work was <i>Mere Christianity</i>, and as he wrote in the Preface to that book, he believed that the best service he could render to his unbelieving neighbours was not to introduce them to the divisions in Christianity but “to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.” This did not mean that he denied the importance of creeds or “denominations,” only that he was not going to tell the unbelievers he addressed which church they should join. That decision was important – Lewis stressed that for believers church membership was essential – but it was to be made later, after one had become a Christian. For the time being, then, Lewis’s stress was on “mere” Christianity. In a time of declining denominationalism this may well have added to his growing appeal. Evidence of that appeal, McGrath tells us, is that since the early 1990s Lewis’s books have been religious best-sellers.<br />
<br />
These, then, are among the factors which, McGrath shows, have contributed to Lewis’s popularity and influence today. Of course, of overriding importance was and is the actual message he conveyed in his writings. As mentioned, some day I hope to return to McGrath’s biography to see what it tells us about that aspect of Lewis’s work.<br />
<br />
<hr /><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*Alister McGrath, <i>C.S. Lewis – A Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet</i>, Tyndale House Publishers, 2013.</span>Frederika Oosterhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06340388418031783192noreply@blogger.com0Hamilton, ON43.250020800000009 -79.86609140000001642.510006300000008 -81.156984900000012 43.990035300000009 -78.57519790000002tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-11421737052011469892013-04-03T11:15:00.000-07:002013-05-22T09:37:27.178-07:00Inerrancy in the Canadian and American Reformed ChurchesI have written <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/143020052/Infallibility-and-Inerrancy-in-the-CanRC-by-Jitse-van-der-Meer">an essay</a> which addresses concerns expressed about the use of the term “inerrancy” in the Federation of <a href="http://www.canrc.org/">Canadian and American Reformed Churches</a>. In <a href="http://archive.org/download/InerrancyLessonFromHistory/Inerrancy--LessonsFromHistory.pdf"><i>Clarion</i> (2009)</a> the Rev. Wes Bredenhof suggested that these objections to inerrancy were motivated by a desire for a looser interpretation of Scripture. In this essay I argue that the real reason for concern is the rationalistic distortion of inerrancy that has developed over the last decades in North America. After the introduction, I describe what the term inerrancy originally meant, how this meaning has been distorted, how this distortion shows up in the Chicago statements on the inerrancy, hermeneutics and application of the Bible, how this distortion has been evaluated, and how the distorted form of inerrancy has entered our churches. I end with a review of some of the different perspectives on inerrancy and how they issue into preferences regarding whether the term is still useful. I conclude that a continued use of the term inerrancy is a matter of strategy, not of principle provided we stick with its original meaning that Scripture is truthful and trustworthy because its Author is true and trustworthy.<br />
<br />
The essay can be found in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/143020052/Infallibility-and-Inerrancy-in-the-CanRC-by-Jitse-van-der-Meer">here</a>.Jitse van der Meerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02564632094598243894noreply@blogger.com0Ancaster, ON, Canada43.2177791 -79.9872834999999943.125201600000004 -80.148644999999988 43.3103566 -79.825921999999991tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-66156039371069614252013-03-12T13:00:00.000-07:002013-04-09T07:04:59.441-07:00Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing? False Prophets? Comments on Bredenhof’s Position Statements on Creation and EvolutionIn the Canadian Reformed churches (as in many evangelical churches) most people see evolution and creation as opposites, and evolution as automatically against Christianity. We would agree with this assessment if evolution is seen as an all-encompassing worldview which claims that God does not exist, that the universe is governed instead by random chance and is without purpose and meaning, and that humans are no different from animals. However, such a view is what we have been calling “evolution<i><b>ism</b></i>.” The biological theory of evolution, on the other hand, as a scientific theory simply does not make such philosophical and religious claims. Christian students ought to be guided in making careful distinctions as part of a diligent search for truth both about God’s world and God’s Word. This is especially true in our day as the biological theory is finding ever increasing lines of support from multiple angles, even as the “new atheists” get louder in their claim that science has disproven the Bible.<br />
<br />
Faithful study of the relationship between evolution and Christianity is not encouraged when such distinctions are studiously ignored, or when those who earnestly seek the truth in the matter are vilified. Here is a case in point.<br />
<br />
Some time ago Rev. W. Bredenhof posted a “position paper” (dramatically illustrated with a picture of a wolf in sheep’s clothing) wherein he issued a warning against “dangerous false teachings” among us. We agree that a pastor is expected to warn his sheep against wolves. It should be done, however, with proper discernment, precision, and balance, and all this was sadly lacking. Accusations were levelled at certain individuals without reference to their published work, and without allowing them to respond by means of comments to the post. [<i>Note:</i> On 8 April 2013, we were informed by Rev. Bredenhof that he has removed the illustration.]<br />
<br />
Specifically, Bredenhof accused some unnamed “intellectuals and professional scientists” in the CanRC, who, he said, promulgate “false teachings pertain[ing] to the relationship between science and Scripture, more particularly with regard to creation and evolution.” Anonymity, it seemed, was assured. It takes not much detective work, however, to find out whom the “Position Statements” were in fact directed against. As is well-known, we have for some years (since April 2009) been writing on our blog about the relationship between science and Scripture, including the matter of “creation and evolution.” Bredenhof himself has more than once drawn attention to this fact in the media, warning the readers against us. Every reader will understand, therefore, that he had us in mind. <br />
<br />
We conclude that the procedure the author followed is not in conformity with biblical guidelines as they are summarized in Lord’s Days 40 and 43 of the Heidelberg Catechism. We attempted to convince him of this by means of a visit and private correspondence, but our attempts were unsuccessful. In the end, therefore, we decided to take this opportunity to publicly respond in an attempt to set the record straight. Meanwhile we are still struggling with the question why our critics insist on condemning us unheard. How many of those who have portrayed us as apostates in the media and/or in common gossip have bothered to visit us to discuss the issues with us, or even simply agreed to correspond with us? Had proper communication indeed been the practice, which unfortunately it was not, much of the unholy bickering among us could have been avoided, to the great benefit of the church community.<br />
<br />
The problematic “Positions Statements” are available <a href="http://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/position-statements-on-creation-and-evolution/">here</a>. We copy them here (adding numbers for ease of reference) and present portions in italics and respond to each in turn.<br />
<br />
<b>1. The Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture</b><br />
<br />
<i>WB: “The Bible is the authoritative Word of God. It is inspired, infallible, and inerrant. It stands supreme over all human thoughts and endeavours. Historically, those who have denied the inerrancy of Scripture have done so with an agenda often linked to scientific or historical concerns or doubts.”</i><br />
<br />
Our Response: No examples are given for the claim in the final sentence of this statement. In its generality this assertion is true. But in the context of this particular discussion it is a regrettable attempt to accuse us by association with whomever in the past have denied inerrancy for the specific purpose of doubting the historicity of certain Scripture passages. This is a political strategy known as declaring guilty by association which ought to have no place in honest discussions within the church community. Further, noteworthy is the fact that the CanRC and our seminary officially teach the <i>infallibility</i> of Scripture, not its <i>inerrancy</i>. The statement quoted implies an unsubstantiated accusation of Reformed theologians and other church members, past and present, who warned against the use of the term “inerrancy.” We also point out that nowhere do the Three Forms of Unity use the term inerrancy, and there have been objections to the recent inclusion of the term in a preamble to a new proposed church order.<br />
<br />
The use of the concept of inerrancy is virtually meaningless in view of the many definitions given to it. Therefore, the assumption by Bredenhof that we are denying inerrancy is also empty. Further, the assertion by Bredenhof is such a generalization that even if he had a clear definition of inerrancy, it would still be meaningless. The use of generalizations is a problem throughout Bredenhof’s piece; apparently it serves him as a strategy that allows him to declare guilt by association without proper grounds. (For another example, see his statement under “The Gospel is at Stake,” #3 below.)<br />
<br />
<b>2. Science and Scripture</b><br />
<br />
<i>WB: “The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but it does provide firm foundations for every scientific endeavour. All Christian scientists should approach their calling by first fearing the LORD and humbly honouring his Word above all. Psalm 36:9b says, ‘…in your light do we see light.’ Colossians 2:3 tells us, ‘…in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.’ When the results of science and the clear teaching of Scripture appear to conflict, the Christian scientist is called to submit to what Scripture says and modify his scientific theories accordingly.”</i><br />
<br />
Our Response: Lacking here are (1) an explanation of how the Bible provides foundations for every scientific endeavour without being degraded to a scientific textbook, (2) a definition of “the clear teaching of Scripture,” and (3) a proper reference to the history of the relations between faith and science in the Christian church. As to the first point, how does Rev. Bredenhof suggest the Bible provides foundations for research into the hormonal control of growth, or the synthesis of plastics, or the quantum structure of matter? Just asking these few questions shows how little one can do with empty generalizations. Regarding the second point, readers should be reminded or made aware of matters such as different biblical genres, and also of what John Calvin and others have called the principle of accommodation. Various examples can be given of biblical statements that, if taken literally, do appear to conflict with what science says but can be and have been harmonized. The acceptance of the heliocentric theory can serve as one example among many. Let us also keep in mind John Calvin’s advice: “He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere” (commentary on Genesis 1:6 in Calvin’s <i>Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis)</i>.<br />
<br />
And as to the third point, historically, when scientists and others noted apparent conflicts and sought for a means of reconciling Scripture and science, the Christian church has accepted such attempts. In fact, from the beginning of the Christian church, scientists and other thinkers have been allowed to reserve judgment on the precise interpretation of a Scriptural passage while looking for harmonization. Such an attitude has never been considered unbelief. Nor should it today be considered as such. Exegesis is not infallible.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, reference to historical development will show that in all the debates in the Christian church on the relationship between theology and science, <i>“science has taken the lead in provoking theologians to reconsider their exegesis. The quest for harmonization with science has led theologians and pastors to reject the theories of a lucid moon and a solid </i>raqi’a<i>, and adopt theories of the four elements, a spherical earth, heliocentrism, and Day-Age and Gap theories of the creation days. In none of these cases did the transformation begin with exegetical work. Exegetical arguments have invariably followed from philosophical and scientific arguments that caused the church to reconsider her traditional exegesis.”</i> [Peter J. Wallace, “The Doctrine of Creation in the History of the Church”, available <a href="http://peterwallace.org/essays/history.htm">here</a> or in our “Collected Papers”.]<br />
<br />
That having been said, we agree that proper biblical hermeneutical principles ought to be followed; scientific advances do not provide a new interpretation but only identify the necessity for it, especially if a prior interpretation was constructed in view of an older scientific idea which has now been displaced. Every exegete who respects Scripture as the Word of God affirms the principle that extra-biblical knowledge can provide the occasion for a different interpretation of texts in Scripture, but that Scripture must provide the justification.<br />
<br />
<b>3. The Gospel is at Stake</b><br />
<br />
<i>WB: “Theistic evolution in its various forms teaches that God used evolutionary processes to bring about the creatures that are described in Genesis 1 and 2, including man. Theistic evolution is a serious error in conflict with God’s Word. It requires a radical reinterpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 to explain away certain aspects and make room for science. Historically, the same hermeneutic has been employed to deny the virgin conception and physical and historical resurrection of Jesus. The hermeneutic which allows for theistic evolution opens the door to a denial of the gospel. This is why I say that we are being assailed by a dangerous false teaching.”</i><br />
<br />
Our Response: We deal with the use of the term “theistic evolution” under #5, below. But in connection with this argument the following points must be raised. (1) The interpretation of Biblical passages has been corrected and improved in response to promptings by science. Some of them were mentioned above (the rejection of theories of a lucid moon, a solid firmament, a non-spherical earth, and geocentrism) — and these reinterpretations have been fully accepted by the church and have not had the dire effect suggested in the position statement. (2) The Bible makes it very clear that there is no salvation for those who deny the incarnation, virgin conception, resurrection and ascension of Christ. Nowhere, however, does the Bible make similar statements with respect to such theories as heliocentrism or to non-literalistic interpretations of the creation account. For that reason orthodox Christianity has always allowed interpretations inspired by such theories. (3) Bredenhof’s argument assumes that a correct hermeneutic necessarily produces a correct interpretation of Scripture. As every biblical scholar knows, this is not the case. The particularity of a pericope with its contexts throws a wrench into any general methodological impositions of this kind. Generalizations of this nature are a convenient strategy for declarations of guilt by association with a particular hermeneutical approach, but such declarations are empty.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Genesis 2:7</b><br />
<br />
<i>WB: “The plain reading of this passage categorically rules out any notion of hominid ancestors for Adam. God formed Adam, not from some pre-existing creature, but from the dust of the earth. “Man became a living creature” at this point – that implies that he was not a living creature prior to this moment. To reinterpret these words to accommodate any theory of evolution is unbelief. It is sin against the first commandment. It is a refusal to accept God’s Word and a form of idolatry.”</i><br />
<br />
Our Response: Here we have again the severely problematic and simplistic notion of a “plain reading.” What is forgotten is that the plain reading of a passage is not necessarily the correct reading. An added complication is that what is plain to one person is often not plain to another, and what is plain in one age can well be different from what is plain in another. What ought to be “plain” is that Scripture is to be interpreted according to hermeneutical methods which actually are adopted by Reformed theologians and ministers. It is quite mysterious to us why somehow Bredenhof and some other CanRC people wish to apply “plain reading” strategies to just Genesis 1 & 2 and not to Amos, Jeremiah, Daniel, Revelation, etc. Many Reformed theologians for many years have offered Biblical interpretations of Genesis 2:7 which do not require a “plain sense reading.” We have offered a <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2010/04/response-to-ten-reasons-1.html">response</a> as well:<br />
<blockquote>Thought must be given as to what “dust” means. Considering Psalm 103:14, we know that even we today are created from dust. (See also Genesis 18:27; I Kings 16:2; Job 10:9; Job 34:15; Psalm 90:3.) Thus, comparing Scripture with Scripture, we see that Adam’s creation from “dust” does not necessarily mean that God pushed around some mud and formed a humanoid shape. Instead, “dust” has a range of acceptable interpretations including “the material Adam is made of,” “the humble status of Adam,” and “the clay used by the divine potter to fashion Adam.” Contrary to this, many other religions assume humanity was formed out of divine substance.</blockquote>Bredenhof does not offer a response to our suggestion; instead, he simply narrows this possible range of meanings to just one, attempts to impose it on others, and thinks this is the “clear teaching” of Scripture.<br />
<br />
Let us also be clear on another point. Closing one’s eyes to what Scripture is revealing in other places, as Bredenhof does, makes it impossible to interpret Scripture. Further, we are trying to understand Scripture with our eyes open to other truths which God has placed in our path. All truth is God’s truth, regardless of its origin. It has been a standard of good exegesis to use extra-biblical sources with the understanding that Scripture provides the justification for its own interpretation. Bredenhof’s problem is that he simply ignores all scientific findings, something that was not done by earlier theologians.<br />
<br />
<b>5. History</b><br />
<br />
<i>WB: “In the past there have been Reformed theologians who have held various positions on the age of the earth. This does not say anything about whether such positions are true or false. Such positions may have been tolerated, but this could have been because of a lack of foresight as to where such positions might lead.”</i> [continued further below]<br />
<br />
Our Response: First, the results of research should never be assessed on the basis of fears about what others might do with it in the future. A knife can be used for a beneficial operation or for murder. Second, another and perhaps a better explanation is that such positions were held and accepted (and not just tolerated) throughout Reformed church history because with few exceptions Reformed Christians followed the example of men like Augustine and John Calvin who (1) took secular science and other secular scholarship seriously (Calvin gratefully accepted science as God’s gift and confessed that “human competence in art and science…derives from the Spirit of God” — <i>Institutes</i>, II.ii.16), and (2) therefore also admitted the responsibility of Christians to take secular learning seriously. Well-known is Augustine’s warning to fellow Christians:<br />
<blockquote>Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]</blockquote><br />
For the history of the relationship between faith and science in the Christian church see further the comments under #1 and #2 above.<br />
<br />
At this point we want to ask Rev. Bredenhof and those who agree with him if they really want a church that makes acceptance of young-earth creationism a condition for membership. If that is indeed what they desire, what will they and their followers do with the heritage of the Reformed theologians, philosophers, and other scholars of the past who defended a non-literalistic interpretation of the creation account? More importantly, how will they justify this before the Head of the church?<br />
<br />
<i>WB: “The Canadian Reformed Churches have expressed concerns to the United Reformed Churches about the toleration of the Framework Hypothesis. The Framework Hypothesis leaves the door open for seeing the earth as millions or billions of years old rather than thousands or tens of thousands. This in turn more easily accommodates theistic evolution. Still, no URC ministers are known to be promulgating theistic evolution. No Reformed theologians in the Canadian Reformed Churches have promulgated theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is now what is being promulgated by various intellectuals and scientists. This is what must be addressed and refuted.”</i><br />
<br />
Our Response: The Framework Hypothesis (FH) should be assessed on its own merits, not on how others might use the FH. The history of scholarship makes it clear that on many occasions a hypothesis has been used in support of any number of agendas not actually implied by the hypothesis itself. Further, the notion that an old earth makes it easy to accommodate theistic evolution is no argument against an old earth. In both cases Bredenhof uses <i>political</i> strategies where <i>scholarly</i> argument is called for. This is unfortunate, as we are engaged not in a power struggle but in attempts to find truth.<br />
<br />
It remains undeniable that in the longer history of the CanRC various interpretations of passages like those in Genesis 1 have been respected. Nothing in the Reformed confessions (or in the Scriptures themselves) binds us to the adoption of particular interpretations (e.g. “six 24-hour ordinary days about 6000 years ago”), and we are grateful for the heritage of our Canadian Reformed churches for not adopting such statements but respecting <i>‘vrijheid van exegese’</i> (freedom of exegesis), as explained in van Genderen & Velema’s widely used Reformed systematic theology textbook.<br />
<br />
Bredenhof’s claim that we promulgate theistic evolution is misleading. For “theistic evolution” is a problematic term with no single agreed-upon definition. If he means a combination of belief in God with an acknowledgement that the biological theory of evolution has considerable evidential support, although some aspects are still under debate, then indeed we are guilty as charged — as also is the young-earth creationist <a href="http://toddcwood.blogspot.ca/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html">Todd Wood</a>. If Bredenhof means that we affirm that non-life produced life and that animal life produced human life, we reject these notions, instead affirming that God created life where there was none before, and that God acted in a special way to create human life. But it appears that Bredenhof simply wishes to employ a rhetorical strategy, to instill fear and grave concern in the minds of his followers who are not aware of these nuances.<br />
<br />
We reject the notion that evolution is to be seen as simply a natural process running on its own, into which God has to intervene from time to time to guide it along. God is the creator and sustainer of all things; he created and governs all things by the word of his power.<br />
<br />
Bredenhof plays on the fact that many Christians feel that “evolution” <i>by definition</i> excludes God’s involvement. But if evolution is simply a description and explanation of processes taking place in the created world, due to God’s creative and sustaining power, then the difficulty disappears.<br />
<br />
For example: We all recognize that God has knit the unborn child together in its mother’s womb (Psalm 139). This does not mean that scientists may not delve into the processes involved in conception, pregnancy, and birth. Would a Christian who focuses on the early development of the fœtus be called a “theistic embryologist”? And would he be condemned for accepting the findings of embryology?<br />
<br />
Also, we all recognize that it is God who sends the rain and hail and snow and wind (Psalm 148); these creatures obey his will and do his bidding. But does this mean scientists may not delve into atmospheric science? Is somehow the plain sense reading of Psalm 148 at risk when as Christians we apply thermodynamics and Navier-Stokes equations to describe, explain, and predict the weather? Would a Christian studying the weather and climate be called a “theistic meteorologist”? And again, would he be condemned for accepting the findings of meteorology?<br />
<br />
It is clear that the use of the term “theistic evolution” in the context of Bredenhof’s missive is again simply a rhetorical strategy, avoiding the proper defining and nuancing of terms and, it seems, intended to instill fear into the hearts of the faithful who look to him for leadership. Our young people, especially university students, can see right through this approach.<br />
<br />
<b>6. The Reformed Confessions</b><br />
<br />
<i>WB: “The Confessions are not a wax nose that can be turned any way we please. For example, Belgic Confession article 14 references Genesis 2:7, “We believe that God created man of dust from the ground…” When the Confession was first adopted by the Reformed Churches, it was understood that this meant that God literally created man from the earth. Prior to Adam, there were no “Adam-like” creatures or hominids. The first commentator on the Belgic Confession, Samuel Maresius, was familiar with the idea of pre-Adamites in his day. He wrote a lengthy refutation of the notion. Likewise, in his commentary on the Confession he indicates that the Confession means what it says. There is no room for pre-Adamites in the Belgic Confession. When the same Confession was adopted by the Canadian Reformed Churches, there was the same understanding. There is no “wiggle room” in this statement. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, it may be advisable for our churches, in consultation with our sister churches and others (at ICRC and NAPARC) to add a clarifying statement in article 14 that rules out any possible notion of pre-Adamites or theistic evolution.”</i><br />
<br />
Our Response: It is noteworthy that, as Bredenhof himself points out, the authors of the Belgic Confession were aware of a theory of pre-Adamites but did not refer to it in the Confession. Neither, of course, did they make any pronouncements on the age of the earth, the length of the “days,” the position of the earth in the solar system, and similar matters. Apparently the confession was, in the view of its authors, not meant to pronounce on issues of what was for them modern science. Rather, the confessions were to proclaim the infallibility of Scripture (not its inerrancy if this is interpreted in the latter-day rationalistic sense). May our churches, and the Reformed churches worldwide, take heed and be careful not to depart from the wisdom the authors of the Reformed confessions displayed. Bredenhof refers to the views of a particular commentator on the Belgic Confession. However, Calvinism never was a homogeneous movement. Individual Calvinists have held a variety of views on matters scientific, theological and otherwise. For instance, the Calvinist astronomer Nicolaus Mulerius (1564-1630) rejected heliocentrism while the Calvinist astronomer Philip Lansbergen (1561-1632) promoted it. Likewise, the geologist John William Dawson (1820-1899) rejected Darwin’s theory of evolution while the theologian James Iverach (1839-1922) accepted it. Both were Presbyterians who had studied at the University of Edinburgh, Iverach in mathematics and physics, Dawson in geology. Like them, we are not bound beyond the Confessions to also affirm the views of commentators. Nor are we bound beyond the Confessions to also affirm whatever reasons churches may have had to adopt the Confessions.<br />
<br />
As it stands, the confessions are indeed sufficient to take care of the question of pre-Adamites. We believe that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. As such Adam and Eve were the first human beings. No creature existing before this special action of God was created in his image, and no such creature is therefore to be regarded as human. This includes those beings which used primitive tools and whose skeletal remains we have as fossils. And we affirm a robust Christian anthropology, rejecting the notion that being human is simply biological; instead, humans alone among all creatures on earth relate to God as persons. Humans alone are created in God’s image, and have the calling and responsibility to obey his command of love and to articulate his praises.<br />
<br />
<b>7. Mission</b><br />
<br />
<i>WB: “The question of creation and evolution is not a widespread global issue amongst Christians, whether new or more mature believers. It is more of an issue amongst North American and European academics in urban environments. One should not be tempted to reconsider the issue of theistic evolution on the basis of an argument that this is a significant concern for Christian mission.”</i><br />
<br />
Our Response: Assuming for the moment that this is merely a problem for urbanites, does this mean that urbanites are not important? In the parable of the lost sheep, the shepherd left all his sheep to save just one. Should we not be concerned about urbanites, or is Rev. Bredenhof not interested in urban missions? Further, it is not clear what is meant by the word “reconsider.” Does it refer to the proclamation of the biological theory of evolution as gospel truth? That should of course never be done — no more than notions such as young-earth creation science should be proclaimed as gospel truths. What we (and others) who acknowledge the strength of the scientific evidences for an old earth and/or biological evolution, and who seek to understand these matters also in light of Scripture, ask is that our positions be not condemned as the work of Satan and worthy of excommunication. In short, we ask that these positions be “tolerated” and freely discussed.<br />
<br />
To what extent the issue should in fact be mentioned in missionary activity will depend on the type of mission one has in mind. If we think of mission to what are sometimes called primitive peoples, it is probably best to ignore the issue, at least until questions arise. This can also be the case in mission to Muslims, although there may well be educated Muslims who, when drawn to the Gospel, would consider the rejection of modern science as a barrier. However this may be, the church has a duty to proclaim the gospel not only to “heathens and Muslims” but also to members of what was once a Christian society. And here, in what is usually called evangelism, the outright rejection of the claims of modern science will frequently constitute an unnecessary stumbling block. It also threatens to constitute an unnecessary stumbling block to church members, especially to academics and students. They, as well as their non-Christian peers, know of the advances in medicine and technology that modern science has achieved. It will be difficult for them to believe that they can only be accepted as members of our church if they are willing to reject much of modern science.<br />
<br />
It is unfortunate that many, including Bredenhof, continue, despite our urgings, to conflate evolution with evolution<i><b>ism</b></i>. That is, they fail to see the distinction between a theory of biology on the one hand and an overarching worldview or philosophy on the other. This distinction is intentionally blurred by the well-known new atheists who claim that science has proven the universe has no purpose and that God does not exist, etc. And organizations like <i>Answers in Genesis</i> agree with these atheists (insofar as they too conflate evolution and evolutionism) for their own purposes.<br />
<br />
<b>8. The Calling of Office Bearers and Consistories</b><br />
<br />
<i>WB: “All office bearers have a duty to ‘oppose, refute, and help prevent’ the errors of theistic evolutionary thinking in the Canadian Reformed Churches. Whether in public (from the pulpit) or in private discussions, ministers have a responsibility to give clear direction from the Word of God and call those to repentance who are harbouring, tolerating, or teaching such errors. Consistories have a responsibility to use the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bring brothers and sisters who harbour, tolerate, or teach such errors to real amendment and repentance. A failure to carry out this calling will be detrimental to the spiritual health of the Canadian Reformed Churches.”</i><br />
<br />
Our Response: As the above will have made clear, we are convinced that any attempt to censure and silence those who, while confessing their faith according to the biblical and Reformed doctrine of salvation, simply ask for a free and open discussion on their views regarding the relationship between faith and science, will (1) be a revolutionary innovation in any Reformed church, and (2) seriously endanger, rather than enhance, the spiritual health of such a church. Consistories should never abuse their authority and use the keys of the kingdom to safeguard their own fallible opinion on the issue under discussion.<br />
<br />
<b>The Way Forward</b><br />
<br />
In the foregoing we have expressed our deep concern about both the tone and the contents of Rev. Bredenhof’s blog post. He leaves the impression that in our community it is perfectly acceptable to hurt each other with insensitive language and offensive pictures for the purpose of maintaining what is considered pure doctrine. As a result, however, the pure doctrine becomes invisible in a fog of impure practices. Why, we ask, doesn’t Bredenhof follow the rule of Matthew 18 and why doesn’t he agree to enter into discussion, face to face, with those he disagrees with? This requires a willingness by both parties to give an account of their views, and to do so in an attempt to understand each other. It is what Scripture calls us to do. We had therefore hoped that our repeated requests for a hearing would receive a positive answer. Unfortunately, they did not. Bredenhof stated that he is not prepared to engage in a discussion with us. He is convinced, we have to conclude, that our position is of such a dangerous nature that it must be condemned without further ado, biblical teachings notwithstanding.<br />
<br />
We have in our response registered our objections not just to Bredenhof’s attitude and procedure with respect to us, but also to his arguments. Of course, we understand what moves him. He is convinced that the Reformed character of our churches is at risk if a non-literalistic interpretation of the creation account is allowed; indeed, that this will endanger the spiritual well-being of all the church’s members. But as we have pointed out, such a conclusion is not in agreement with the Bible and the Confessions, and it has therefore never officially been taught in the Christian church. It is an innovation, and a revolutionary one at that. As history makes clear, the approach is also dangerous, since it leads to the denial of scientific theories that are in conflict with a literalistic reading of Scripture regardless of the scientific evidence. They are portrayed as baseless and even, as happens among us today, as the work of Satan himself. But do we realize what we are saying? Many of the applications of modern science are of great benefit to us and are to be received with thanksgiving. Surely we do not want to suggest that we owe them to Satan? We reminded you in this connection of the warnings not only of Augustine (as quoted above) but also of John Calvin, who confessed that science (and he referred to secular science!) is God’s gift. He added, “If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonour the Spirit of God” (<i>Institutes</i>, II.ii.15; for similar statements see also other paragraphs in this chapter).<br />
<br />
Although we are convinced with John Calvin that science is God’s gift, we do not deny that it presents Christians with serious challenges. Indeed, these challenges have been admitted throughout church history, but they are probably more serious in our days than they were in Augustine’s or Calvin’s. One of the reasons why we established the blog <i>Reformed Academic</i> was the widely felt need to deal honestly with these difficulties and to refer students and others to the work of Christian scientists, theologians, philosophers, and others, both past and present, who have wrestled with these challenges and attempt to offer us solutions. Much of our work is of an apologetic nature, that is, it focuses on the defence of the faith in a world where that faith is under constant attack, not least by those who try to use science as evidence that God does not exist. We hope to continue this work, and we urge our pastors and teachers not to reject it as anti-Christian, but rather to support it. The way to go forward for our churches is not to deny science but deal with the challenges it presents. May God bless that work!<br />
Reformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-87708678063322591352013-02-18T13:00:00.000-08:002013-02-18T13:00:00.933-08:00Too Ridiculous To Be True<div style="text-align: right;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>An explosion simply cannot create</i></div>
<i><div style="text-align: center;">
<i>the order and beauty we see today.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Let’s be reasonable: blowing up<br />a </i><i style="text-align: right;"><div style="display: inline !important; text-align: center;">
<i>junkyard does not result in<br />a </i></div>
</i><i style="text-align: right;"><div style="display: inline !important; text-align: center;">
<i>Boeing 747. Neither does dropping</i></div>
</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>a bomb on a paint factory result</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>in a Rembrandt. The big bang is</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>clearly a ridiculous idea.</i></div>
</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
So goes a common criticism of modern scientific theories in cosmology, which we hear from time to time, also in our circles. [An example can be found <a href="http://orangevillechurch.ca/wp/?page_id=696">here</a>.]<br />
<br />
All Christians, at least those who confess the Apostles’ Creed, believe the world was formed at the Lord’s command as is clearly revealed in Scripture. For me as a physicist it is clear that the multiple converging lines of evidence are extremely strong in their support of the overall picture of modern science which claims that the world came into being about 14 billion years ago.<br />
<br />
And so what do we say?<br />
<br />
The big bang is, of course, ridiculous. Indeed it was ridiculed by atheistic scientists when they were confronted with the first scientific evidence of a beginning of time presented by observations of an expanding universe. This was quite disturbing for unbelievers, since it seemed to confirm the Bible and imply a creator.<br />
<br />
But there are other ridiculous ideas as well:<br />
<ul>
<li>Planets are kept in their orbits by an invisible force.<br />
</li>
<li>The Sun is a massive nuclear furnace.<br />
</li>
<li>All the carbon atoms in our bodies were formed in the cores of stars.<br />
</li>
<li>Babies grow in their mother’s womb from a single-celled egg fertilized by a single tiny sperm.<br />
</li>
<li>Solid objects consist almost entirely of purely empty space.<br />
</li>
<li>Earth spins about an axis while revolving around the Sun.<br />
</li>
<li>The square root of two is inexpressible as a ratio of integers.<br />
</li>
</ul>
These ideas, and many more, were ridiculed by the members of the scientific community and/or the public who first heard of them, including well-meaning Christians (and believers of other faiths), and some of these ideas are <i>still</i> held as ridiculous by some.<br />
<br />
Scientists indeed work with exotic ideas, but the scientific community is usually ultimately forced to bow to the clear evidences presented by a world “fearfully and wonderfully made” by an all-powerful, all-wise Creator. In the case of the big bang and subsequent astrophysical processes, Christians are even able to discern special signposts to God’s providential guidance, such as the evident “fine tuning” of particles’ properties and of physical laws. We live in what is often called a “Goldilocks Universe”…just right! Indeed the Creator has prepared a special place for us as our loving heavenly Father.<br />
<br />
As Christians, we affirm that the creation did not come into being on its own, but by the will of the Triune Creator. Psalm 33:6 expresses this wonderfully: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” Romans 1:20 indicates that all humans deep down do really know there is a divine being: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” God reveals himself to us more fully through the Scriptures and especially through Jesus Christ: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). Science cannot delve into these matters, as God is not subject to the methods of science. “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command” (Hebrews 11:3).<br />
<br />
As a Christian with some research background in cosmology, I am able to stress to my students (and others) that science does not actually speak about the <i>origin</i> of the universe, but only its <i>history</i> (in addition to its current mechanisms). That is, science has its definite limits, one of which is in the whole area of origins. Science cannot address where the universe came from in the final analysis, despite what many public spokespersons of science claim. And so the Biblical truth of God as Origin of all is not and cannot be targeted by science <i>per se</i>. (You can read more about this in <a href="http://goo.gl/kgwqi">my blog posting</a> about the false dichotomy of origin and operation science promulgated by young-earth creationists.)<br />
<br />
And so what do we do with the ridiculous idea of the big bang? It is important to be aware that many ridiculous ideas do in fact turn out to be true. It is too simple to just say that these ideas <i>ought</i> to be ridiculed, and discarded and the Bible simply believed. And it is not simply a matter of accepting science over against God’s Word.<br />
<br />
Yes, God’s Word is more than a human’s word. And to acknowledge God as creator is a faith statement. And science also involves faith, as well described by Vern Poythress in the chapter entitled “Why Scientists Must Believe in God” of his book <a href="http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/NAllPoythressRedeemingScience20061017.pdf"><i>Redeeming Science</i></a>. But acknowledging God as creator is also a rational point of view, as are the scientific theories regarding the historical development of the universe. It has long been understood by many Christians, including Reformed believers, that the Bible never was intended to give detailed timing and mechanisms for the universe or its creation. Historically, Reformed believers have routinely allowed for alternative interpretations of Genesis 1 (e.g.) which do not settle the matter of the exact date of creation or the sequencing of creative events (or the physical composition of the atmosphere, or the overall structure of the cosmos, for that matter). And so accepting the truth of the Bible does not entail the rejection of scientific theories. Now, to be clear, it does entail rejection of all manner of philosophical and religious ideas that are often linked closely together with such theories by a small number of very vocal scientists (such as Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins). But the burden that is often laid upon believers, and also upon those considering the claims of Christianity as we reach out to unbelieving neighbours, friends, and co-workers, especially those who are working in or are familiar with the sciences, is not a burden which I believe God wants to have placed upon us: a requirement to accept as settled and binding certain specific and so-called “traditional” interpretations of Scripture.<br />
<br />
And so it is important to be careful that one does not make ridiculing scientific ideas (especially those scientific ideas which are widely acknowledged even by Reformed Christians in the sciences) part and parcel of acceptance of or evidence for the Christian faith. Furthermore, Christianity has its own ideas which are “ridiculous” (and ridiculed) as well, such as the Son of God becoming man, then dying and rising from the dead, God giving grace and faith to those who have rejected him, God being 100% sovereign and man being 100% responsible, Jesus turning water to wine. But these “ridiculous” ideas are also actually true. Praise God that he is not bound by our human reason!Arnold Sikkemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.com1Langley, BC, Canada49.0743308 -122.5593218000000248.741684299999996 -123.20476880000002 49.4069773 -121.91387480000002tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-39762590233558322872013-02-16T13:00:00.000-08:002013-03-05T17:47:36.534-08:00A Reader Responds: Christianity and EvolutionIn December, we received a new comment on <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2009/04/introducing-reformed-academic_14.html">our “Introductory Post”</a> which perhaps our readers may not have noticed, and in reply to our reply, we received a 4200-word essay. Instead of tucking it away in the comment thread there, we invited the author, Calvin Wieske, to run it as a guest post. We appreciate the tone and degree of engagement br. Wieske exhibits, and while some of what he writes we have already addressed elsewhere on this blog, we will be responding to this in due course as time permits. <i>[Update 5 March 2013: We accepted <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-reader-responds-christianity-and.html?showComment=1362530768457#c5126584389735687692" target="_blank">a comment</a> by William Sikkema addressing many of the scientific matters, and Freda Oosterhoff offers <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-reader-responds-christianity-and.html?showComment=1362533865841#c1514781723923937920" target="_blank">a general response</a>; see the comments.]</i> However, we wanted to demonstrate our openness to dialogue by publishing his remarks without delay. Calvin Wieske is member of Ancaster Canadian Reformed Church and a graduate of McMaster University with an Honours B.Sc. in Earth and Environmental Sciences. He describes himself as a young-earth creationist with a special interest in creation science, and has applied to a few schools to obtain a Bachelor of Education this fall and aspires to continue his education, D.V., in the future.<br />
<br />
Br. Wieske's <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/04/introducing-reformed-academic_14.html?showComment=1355958973497#c8680293220006367669">original comment</a> and <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/04/introducing-reformed-academic_14.html?showComment=1356132167597#c1920039631888079158">our reply</a> are copied here for convenience to set the stage for his new contribution.<br />
<hr />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Calvin Wieske:</i> I also applaud the purpose and vision of this blog as a forum for the debate and study of both “…the relationship between worldview and academic theories” and the “…varying degrees of conflict between faith and academics” as mentioned in your introductory post. Having read through a number of articles and collected papers on this blog, along with the personal profiles of the contributors/editors, however, it appears that the four managing blog editors confess to be old-age creationists. Is this true? And if so, would you consider this blog to be an open discussion on the conflict between christianity and science? Or could it be perceived to be a somewhat biased forum for old-earth creation apologetics? In no way do I wish to imply that the intent is to be biased, I am simply wondering if we could avoid the possibility of such bias by perhaps enlisting one or two young-earth creationist contributors/editors to ensure fair treatment of both sides and ensure balanced discussion. This could also discourage viewers from wrongfully assuming that most (if not all) ‘academics’ hold to an old-earth creation theology. Is there merit to my comments or am I coming across as judgemental? I look forward to your response.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Reply by Reformed Academic:</i> We appreciate your letter, Calvin, both for its pleasant tone and because it allows us to explain once more the approach we have been following on this blog. You are right in stating that we are focusing on old-earth creationism. We are doing so, however, not because we oppose or fear an “open and balanced discussion on the conflict between Christianity and science,” but in order to encourage and promote such a discussion. As you have undoubtedly noticed, the old-earth approach appears to be no longer acceptable in the Canadian Reformed Churches. Instead, young-earth creationism is widely promoted as the only possible and acceptable biblical view, such in blatant opposition to a well-documented Reformed tradition, which allowed the discussion of various other theories. (On this Reformed tradition see <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2009/06/young-earth-creationism-history.html">our blog post “Young-Earth Creationism: A History”</a>; an essay, incidentally, that was also submitted to <i>Clarion</i> but was rejected as unsuitable.)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">The immediate reason for establishing the blog was, in fact, the sudden decision of <i>Clarion</i> to censor material written from an old-earth-creationist point of view. This happened about four years ago. Since then, <i>Clarion</i> has steadfastly supported young-earth creationism, denounced old-earth creationism, and continued to close its pages to articles attempting to explain the latter view. In short, young-earth creationism gets all the attention in our printed media it could possibly desire; it is also taught in our schools and occasionally even proclaimed from our pulpits. You will understand that we therefore see no need to invite young-earth-creationist contributors/editors to join our ranks. We do, however, accept and publish comments by people who disagree with us, including young-earth creationists. Indeed, we welcome such comments and the discussions to which they give rise.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">We realize that many of our church members approve of the current CanRef attitude because they believe that any deviation from a literalist explanation of Genesis 1 is dangerous, even heretical, and must therefore be forbidden. We understand that position, but, although some of us have held it in the past, we no longer subscribe to it. We have given the reasons in several of our blog postings. One argument, as noted above, is that it is against the tradition of our churches, and indeed of the Christian Church as such. Different viewpoints on apparent conflicts between Scripture and science have traditionally been allowed, already in the early church. In addition to the essay mentioned in paragraph 1 of this response, we refer you to the work of Dr. Peter J. Wallace, particularly to <a href="http://peterwallace.org/essays/history.htm">his essay</a> “The Doctrine of Creation in the History of the Church,” which you can also find on this blog under “Collected Papers.” Another reason is that declaring a young-earth interpretation of Genesis 1 to be the only acceptable biblical approach creates unnecessary and dangerous stumbling blocks both to fellow-believers (not least to our students and academics) and to “seekers.” Aware of the advances in medicine, technology, and so on, which were achieved, in God’s providence, by modern science, many find it difficult, indeed impossible, to agree to the demand that, in order to be a Christian, they must denounce well-established and fruitful scientific theories as deceptive. We ask for a free and open discussion of the issues at stake first of all to help these people. We do it also, however, for the sake of our churches as such, which we fear are succumbing to a type of “fundamentalism” that is foreign to their tradition.</span></blockquote>
<hr />
Here follows Calvin’s essay in response. We welcome the critical engagement of our readers. As all of us are busy, we don’t expect to respond ourselves very quickly though.<br />
<br />
<center>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Christianity and Evolution:<br />Bias, Fraud and the Question of Compatibility</b></span><br />
<i>A guest post by Calvin Wieske</i></center>
<br />
Thank you for your reply! I apologize for the delay, but I wanted to ensure due diligence in a response. In fact, I used to think that an old earth was plausible, and that it did not really matter biblically. I am no longer of that opinion, however. Again I applaud your joint venture to encourage and promote open and balanced discussion on this controversial topic, and It is my intent that what follows will be written accordingly.<br />
<br />
I have indeed noticed that the Canadian Reformed churches tend to encourage a young-earth view, while encouraging the exclusion of old-earth doctrine from both the classroom and the pulpit. From my experience, there is a good reason for this, which is similar to that which you have put forward for starting this blog. The need for this blog as described in your reply to my comment on “Introducing Reformed Academic” was, if I may summarize, “…the sudden decision of <i>Clarion</i> to censor material written from an old-earth-creationist point of view…[while] young-earth creationism gets all the attention in our printed media it could possibly desire”. What is not mentioned is that modern secular science pushes evolutionary thinking in all forums, whether it be public schools where it is taught as fact, or the news, where fossils are frequently trumpeted as being the latest “transitional form” or “evolutionary breakthrough”, when closer scrutiny reveals a lot of extrapolation, and very little hard evidence. In addition, <i>The Discovery Channel</i>, <i>National Geographic</i> and other programs including the BBC’s Emmy-winning <i>“Walking With…”</i> documentary series bring the distant evolutionary past right into your living room in high definition, neglecting to mention that the events portrayed are merely artists’ renderings of scientific conjecture. In fact it might be said that evolution gets all the attention in mass media it could possibly desire. This has undoubtedly led to the hesitation of Canadian Reformed publications to contribute to our continual exposure to evolutionary rhetoric.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, you are not evolutionists, but old-earth creationists, and I understand this. However, the famous English biologist and evolution advocate Thomas Huxley was adamant that evolution and special creation were mutually exclusive, stating, “evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention”. [<i>Evolution and Ethics</i> (London: Macmillan and Co., 1894), p. 6)] In fact, throughout my post-secondary education, this lack of compatibility was a fact that was agreed upon by the vast majority of my professors, and I don’t think it would be remiss to say that most modern secular scientists share this sentiment. This is not surprising since the theory of evolution is a logical result of the belief that God does not exist and the subsequent need for an alternative explanation of life as we know it. Therefore, it is no longer a question of whether the creation days can be seen as non-literal or non-twenty-four hour days, but a question of whether evolution undermines the Bible, and therefore attacks all that we, as Christians, hold dear.<br />
<br />
It is no secret that evolution depends on long ages. How else could advanced life forms come from nothing, or even from eternal, lifeless matter, without supernatural intervention? In fact, materialism (the theory or belief that matter or energy is all that exists) is the driver of evolution, and this, coupled with uniformitarianism, creates the biased worldview of secular scientists. Prominent atheist, evolutionist and critic of creation and intelligent design Richard Dawkins admits, “the fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some ten billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing - is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” [<a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/sci-tech/from-tail-to-tale-on-the-path-of-pilgrims-in-life-1-707195">“From Tale to Tail on the Path of Pilgrims in Life”</a>, <i>The Scotsman</i>, 9 April 2005.] The late paleontologist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould in his 1977 article “Evolution’s Erratic Pace” (reprinted in his 1980 book <i>The Panda’s Thumb</i>) admits, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” This is why Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge developed the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” which describes the history of life as long periods of evolutionary stability ‘punctuated’ by rapid instances of evolutionary branching. In fact, even the word ‘rapid’ here is misleading, as it usually translates to instant appearance of new forms in the fossil record, with a glaring absence of precursors. This theory is in direct contrast to the more common theory of gradual evolution and the work of Charles Darwin, who admitted he must throw out his entire theory if the geological record did not show, “intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life.”<br />
<br />
This is not to say that scientists have not produced examples of ‘transitional forms’ from the fossil record, but rather that they have failed to uncover a definitive record of evolutionary transitions over time, as their predecessors had predicted they would. In fact, these ‘transitional fossils’ are actually distinct creatures, whose status as ‘evidence’ is open to interpretation, and whose fossils often appear (and/or disappear) from the fossil record around the same time as their so-called ‘evolutionary descendants’. The coelacanth is a well-known example of a so-called ‘transitional fossil’, assumed to be a transition between fish and tetrapods (four-legged vertebrates) because of its lobe-like fins. It was believed to have evolved into its modern form around 400 mya (million years ago) and then become extinct 65 mya, as was documented in the fossil record. This was debunked in 1938, when a fisherman caught a live coelacanth off the east coast of South Africa. Since then, many more have been caught and some have even been photographed in their natural habitat. Rather than be embarrassed by their mistake, scientists’ put some of these ‘primitive’ fish in museums and ironically label findings such as these (there are multiple examples) “Lazarus” taxa, after Jesus’ miraculous raising of Lazarus from the dead in John 11. In the same way scientists coin other oxymoronic terms such as “evolutionary conservatism” or “evolutionary stasis” to explain how an animal remains identical despite over 400 million years of environmental fluctuations, not to mention the selective pressures caused by the evolution of everything else in their environment (as their theory predicts). Animals like the coelacanth are described as ‘primitive’, because of their perceived lack of evolutionary progress, regardless of the fact that they often exhibit unique, complex traits that allow them to survive in their environment (in this case, a ‘primitive’ fish ironically survives 400 my of so-called evolution-driving selective pressure by not evolving).<br />
<br />
Examples such as this are useful for illustrating the bias of secular science, as dictated by their worldview. Another example is the term “convergent evolution” which is used to explain how animals from different (theoretical) lineages have acquired ‘analogous’ traits independently, presumably by independently evolving different structures numerous times for the same function (e.g. wings, which have the same function, but completely different structure and origin on bats, insects and birds). In contrast, “divergent” evolution is used to describe different uses and functions of ‘homologous’ structures that have presumably originated in a common ancestor, but have ‘evolved’ for different uses (e.g.. various animals share a similar limb structure made up of a humerus, radius and ulna, which are used for vastly different functions). In this way, evolutionists cover their bases by making the evidence fit their theory, thereby proving that they are not searching for the truth, but rather seek proof for their worldview, regardless of the evidence. <br />
<br />
In a rebuttal to Herman van Barneveld’s comment on “More About Origin and Operation Science: A Response” by Jitse van der Meer, brother van der Meer <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/11/vanderMeer-responds-to-vanBarneveld-re-Bavinck.html">says</a>, “I expect that deeper insight into the causes of the evolution of new body plans (jellyfish, worms, sea urchins, insects, mammals) will come from developmental biology – the study of embryonic development”. In fact, studies on embryonic development in the past have accomplished the opposite. Evolutionarily we would expect the embryonic development of ‘homologous’ traits in two different species to be similar if these traits were inherited from a common ancestor. Instead, however, studies on the development of ‘homologous’ traits have yielded (evolutionarily) surprising results. One such example is the development of digits (fingers and toes) in frogs and humans. Humans develop a spade shaped structure, followed by the digits (e.g. fingers) differentiating as the cells between them are destroyed by apoptosis (programmed cell death). Frogs, on the other hand, grow their digits outwards from a ‘bud’ by way of cell division at growth points (Futuyma, D., <i>Evolutionary Biology</i>, Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts, U.S.A, 2nd ed., p. 436, 1986). This is remarkable since it essentially indicates that the development of these ‘homologous’ structures could not come from shared genes. Some might say then that this is an anomaly, where what appear to be ‘homologous’ traits, are simply similar structures that evolved independently. This is not an obscure example, however, as embryonic development of ‘homologous’ structures differs widely in other animals as well, even in salamanders and frogs which are both amphibians (Fröbisch, N.B., and Shubin, N.H., <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21465623">“Salamander limb development: Integrating genes, morphology, and fossils”</a>, Developmental Dynamics 240(5): 1087-1099, 2011 cited in Statham, Dominic., <a href="http://www.creationmagazine.com/creation/2012vol34iss4?pg=43#pg43">“Homology Made Simple”</a>, <i>Creation</i> 34(4): 43-45, 2012). <br />
<br />
The point here is not that secular scientists are biased while Christians are not, but rather that we are both biased, and our differing worldviews dictate how we interpret the evidence. In other words, the fallacy lies in evolutionists’ interpretation of the evidence. In addition, this illustrates how the evidence has not created their worldview; rather their worldview was firmly established before they began examining the evidence. In the past this may not have been as prominent, as the secular worldview was not as rampant and at that point it could perhaps be argued that some Christians hypothesized the potential of an old earth based on their scientific study. If this was so, however, they were relatively few, and I believe many of them would have retracted their views had they seen the blatant anti-Christian bias of scientists today, as well as the continuing lack of evidence to uphold their theories.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/11/vanderMeer-responds-to-vanBarneveld-re-Bavinck.html">a continued response</a> to Herman van Barneveld’s comment on the aforementioned article, Jitse van der Meer states, “today the fossil record is sufficiently complete to be confident that there are strata with marine fossils such as corals that contain no fish because at the time there were corals, but no fish. This cannot be explained as the result of Noah’s flood, for instance, because it would have mixed up corals and fish”. This betrays a bias in interpretation along the lines of what I have mentioned above. Strata with marine fossils such as corals, which lack fish, could indeed be interpreted to indicate that fish had not yet evolved, from an evolutionists’ point of view. From an unbiased point of view, however, what we see are diverse corals which recent research, including that of a team led by David Miller of the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland, Australia), reveals that corals are complex organisms which are estimated to have 20-25,000 genes, potentially 2,000 genes more than humans! In addition, the lack of fish in coral bearing strata no more proves the nonexistence of fish than the lack of the coelacanth in the last (alleged) 65 my of rock strata proves its extinction. In fact, this phenomenon is relatively common, a result of fossil bias due to the effects of differing organism mobility and hydrodynamic sorting. While corals are sedentary, fish are mobile, allowing them opportunity to escape fossilization events (catastrophic burial for example). In addition, upon death, many animals including fish tend to bloat, causing them to float and degrade before they can be fossilized. These are also reasonable explanations for the relative lack of human fossils in geologic strata. In general, the effects of differential mobility, hydrodynamic dispersion, habitat, anatomy and other factors are well known to create bias in the already sparse fossil record which I will not go further into at this point. <br />
<br />
Jitse van der Meer also <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/11/vanderMeer-responds-to-vanBarneveld-re-Bavinck.html">states</a>, “Herman has been misled by scientific creationists to think that there are no transitional fossils. The fossil record does include fish with legs, fish with lungs, dinosaurs with feathers, mammal-like reptiles etc.” I have already mentioned the coelacanth as evidence of this erroneous thinking, and might add that ‘primitive’ ‘transitional fossils’ known as lungfish (freshwater fish which can breathe air with their lungs) can be found living today in Australia, South America and Africa. These ‘primitive’ animals have been created with unique systems that allow them to survive seasonal drying of their habitat by breathing air and estivating (a form of hibernation) in mud, another example of miraculous ‘evolutionary stasis’ to an evolutionist presumably. I could go on, but you get the point, there are always two sides to the story that must be explored.<br />
<br />
Van der Meer then <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/11/vanderMeer-responds-to-vanBarneveld-re-Bavinck.html">explains</a>, “New information is added to the genome of plants and animals by duplication of existing genes followed by mutation of the duplicate as well as by duplication of entire chromosomes”. This is indeed true to a degree, but one must only look to the incidence of Down’s Syndrome in humans (which is caused by a partial or complete third copy of chromosome 21) to see the adverse effects this generally has on the recipient. Van der Meer <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/11/vanderMeer-responds-to-vanBarneveld-re-Bavinck.html">adds</a>, “Mammals have four sets [of homeotic genes] on four chromosomes. It is generally accepted that they arose by two successive chromosome duplications and subsequent mutations in the duplicate genes.” Generally accepted by secular science, perhaps, but there is certainly no proof of this. Van der Meer is correct, however, in noting, “There is, however, a far more serious problem, namely that of the origin of genetic information. There is strong evidence from polymer chemistry against a molecular mechanism that produces genetic information where there was none before.” This is, in my opinion, one of the largest nails in the coffin of evolution.<br />
<br />
Contrary to Darwin’s predictions, therefore, Dr. Gould points out a problem that can’t be ignored, namely the lack of definitive scientific evidence of evolution and an old earth, despite years and years of biased study and the teaching of evolution as fact in schools, museums, tourist attractions and elsewhere in the public forum. Perhaps this is why creation science has “flourished mightily over the past three or four decades” against all odds, as mentioned in <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2009/06/young-earth-creationism-history.html">the introduction</a> to “Young-Earth Creationism: A History”. In fact, Dr. Oosterhoff, in her article introduced in that blog posting, admits that The Genesis Flood (1961) by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris “conquered not only fundamentalism and much of American evangelicalism as a whole, it found adherents also in conservative protestant churches…Seventh-Day Adventists and Southern Baptists…several members of Reformed and Presbyterian churches [and] even had adherents among Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses.” Was this an accident, or by design? Were these people all misled, or perhaps was God using these men to bring the church back to the Bible? Admittedly, <i>The Genesis Flood</i> contains some examples that are outdated with new scientific developments today, not unlike secular science textbooks of the day. Why is it, then, that its legacy of young-earth creation science lives on? <br />
<br />
This is a loaded question. Perhaps it is the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Perhaps it is the instant ‘explosions’ of life followed by loss of diversity and relentless extinctions that we see instead. It may even be the fact that the evolution movement has been so anti-religious that it is a backlash against the attack of science on the church. What is clear is that for most of written history, the church believed in twenty-four hour creation days, because they had no reason to question it. With the increase in scientific knowledge, new theories were born and there have been numerous young-earth and old-earth theologians since. Calvin and Luther held to a young-earth, as did Augustine, although he allowed for varying lengths of the creation days. Kuyper, Schilder, Bavinck and others allowed an old-earth but none professed evolution, and many of their contemporaries differed on their theories of old-earth creation between the Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory and Framework Hypothesis, among others. But you know all this, so what is the point? The point is that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to conclusively prove or disprove either old-earth creationism or young-earth creationism with our existing scientific evidence. A couple reasons for this include incomplete data and biased interpretations but we are also impeded by the physical, temporal and intellectual limitations that we face as fallible, fallen humanity. Does this mean that we should give up this discussion? I think not. <br />
<br />
Brother van der Meer continues in <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/11/vanderMeer-responds-to-vanBarneveld-re-Bavinck.html">his rebuttal</a> to Herman van Barneveld, “For [creation scientists,] science is a means to show that the Bible is true, not a means to glorify God by studying his works. This became clear after various experiences with scientific fraud on their part for the sake of harmonizing science with Scripture. I am referring to their claim of having found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock, known as the Paluxy River affair, their selective use of radiometric data in an attempt to undermine the credibility of an ancient earth, their claim that the observed exponential decay of the Earth’s magnetic field proves that the Earth cannot be more than about 10,000 years old known as the Thomas Barnes affair.”<br />
<br />
Surely this is a bold accusation, besides being a vast generalization. Admittedly, there have been some regrettable instances in the past where perhaps religious fervour, lack of due diligence and other factors contributed to Christian scientists presenting fraudulent or incorrect data. Perhaps some of this fallacious information was even presented knowingly, with manipulative intent. Does this mean that all Christian scientists are guilty of this? And are we better than them? Is this not the human nature that we all struggle with? In Psalm 53 David writes, “God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (vv. 2, 3 NIV 1984) The problem is, not one of us is perfectly knowledgeable, nor without sin. This is not to be an excuse, however. True science demands that fraudulent and outdated arguments be swiftly exposed and corrected by peer evaluation, as many young-earth creationists have done in regards to the aforementioned controversies. In contrast, we could examine the work of respected German evolutionist Dr. Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel’s altered embryo drawings are famous frauds which were not only a manipulative lie, they are often defended to this day, and are even included in science courses and textbooks, regardless of the fact that they have been admitted fakes for years. A quick background and an example of evolutionists defending these falsified drawings is available in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecH5SKxL9wk">this video</a> from the Discovery Institute.<br />
<br />
An <a href="http://www.livescience.com/25750-science-journal-retractions.html">article</a> from <i>LiveScience</i> called “Oops! 5 Retracted Science Studies of 2012” by columnist Christopher Wanjek sheds more light on this topic. Mr. Wanjek notes, “It seems that an increasing number of scientific studies are just plain wrong and are ultimately retracted. Worse, a study published in October 2012 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (uh, if it’s true) claims that the majority of retractions are due to some type of misconduct, and not honest mistakes, as long assumed”. Mr. Wanjek’s obvious sarcasm aside, it is clearly evident that secular evolutionists are prone to the very ‘scientific fraud’ that van der Meer paints as a defining character of young-earth creationism. Creationists openly admit the bias that comes with their belief in God as our creator, while secular scientists claim to be objective. Van der Meer appears to accept the secular claim that belief in a godless evolutionary process does not create bias in scientific study. I would contend that this is naïve at best. The point here is not to be combative but to establish that science, in theory, is supposed to be an unbiased, objective interpretation of the world around us by means of the scientific method. In reality, however this is rarely the case. Am I saying that human error, bias and fraud force us to abandon scientific study and embrace skeptical, cynical or agnostic attitudes? Certainly not. I think we all agree that the study of God’s Creation is an excellent way to improve our knowledge of God’s incredible power and majesty as well as improve the lives of many who are struggling in a fallen world. It is important, however, to remember the limitations of our fallen world, including that of man, and avoid putting our experiences, studies and perceptions of this world above the infallible revelation we have been given in the Bible.<br />
<br />
The one thing that is constant, trustworthy and true throughout the ages is the holy, infallible Word of God. Should not the Bible, therefore, be both the starting and finishing point of such discussion? It is true that long ages and theistic evolution were considered a possibility by some Christians in the past, but it is also true that these Christians were partially relying on misleading, outdated or biased information, while anticipating future scientific findings that never came to fruition. It is also true that humans are sinful, fallible and prone to bias and Christians are by no means exempt from the consequences of these flaws. It is my opinion, therefore, that today’s church has only recently come to understand how at odds evolution is with scripture, and this has undoubtedly been a contributor to the censoring of old-earth ideas. In her aforementioned article [introduced <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2009/06/young-earth-creationism-history.html">here</a>], Dr. Oosterhoff admits, “Disagreements on this issue are as violent as they have ever been and belong to the most divisive issues among conservative Christians”. Is this not perhaps a reason in itself to censor it from certain publications at the discretion of the editor? This <i>Reformed Academic</i> blog may be used freely as a forum for the discussion of various academic topics, but in a periodical whose mandate differs from this forum, perhaps censorship was the right choice, in order to maintain unity in the church and avoid creating schisms and unrest. One might argue that if periodicals such as <i>Clarion</i> and <i>Reformed Perspective</i> would like to avoid these schisms then they should also censor articles defending young-earth creationism. I would contend that since young-earth arguments do not require a re-interpretation of scripture, and since they are consistent with the belief of the majority of subscribers, the editors of these magazines would be hard pressed to find a reason to do so.<br />
<br />
Finally, I would like to submit for your consideration a challenge to your accusation that the Canadian Reformed Church has unfairly censored and attacked old-earth creationists. Dr. Oosterhoff notes in her article, “The Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches…does not take an official position on the matter”. Isn’t this precisely to avoid “binding consciences” or creating “divisive issues” among Christians? In addition, our confessions do not condemn old-earth creationism directly, nor are people labeled as heretics or excommunicated for such ideas, at least not by the church as a unified body, despite some being of the opinion that this should be the case. On the other hand, <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2009/06/young-earth-creationism-history.html">“Young Earth Creation: A History”</a> refers to Korean Christians as “creationist propagandists” and other young-earth creationists as “anti-Darwinists” and “anti-evolutionists”, which is itself divisive and accusatory language (although perhaps it is not meant as such).<br />
<br />
Overall, both reading science into the bible, and describing creation from the bible have led to embarrassments in the past, such as accepting the Greek theory of four elements, the existence of a solid dome <i>‘raqi’a’</i> or ‘firmament’ in the sky which holds water, a geocentric theory of the universe, a flat earth, and other ideas which we have since corrected. It is important then, that we look at the Bible as the only infallible source of knowledge, and avoid extrapolating beyond God’s Word. In 1 Corinthians 10:23 Paul reminds us take care in all aspects of life since, “Everything is permissible-but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible-but not everything is constructive” (NIV 1984). I believe that <i>Reformed Academic</i> was created with verse 32 of 1 Corinthians 10 in mind, “do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God” (NIV 1984) as explained in the introductory post. Nonetheless, the devil seeks to twist even our best intentions, and I maintain that the tendency to set secular science above a literal reading of the Bible is unwarranted by the evidence and undermines the very doctrine which you seek to protect. The Devil would love to see these discussions cause divisions in the church, to separate us from God and our neighbour. We must keep this in mind so that we are not judgmental, but rather discuss our differences peacefully as brothers and sisters in the unity of Christ, in a spirit of mutual edification. In this way we can work together to hold off the attacks of the Evil One, for “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” Ecclesiastes 4:12 (NIV 1984) <br />
<br />
Calvin Wieske<br />
Ancaster, ONReformed Academichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14744307133232033891noreply@blogger.com9Ancaster, Hamilton, ON, Canada43.2177791 -79.9872834999999943.1252011 -80.148644999999988 43.310357100000004 -79.825921999999991tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-33682794939140459252012-11-13T13:00:00.000-08:002012-11-13T13:00:05.584-08:00More about Origin and Operation Science: A Response by Jitse van der MeerOn 15 August 2012, Herman van Barneveld <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/03/more-about-origin-and-operation-science.html?showComment=1345043250396#c2165804999303287942">responded</a> to my <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/03/more-about-origin-and-operation-science.html">“More about Operation and Origin Science”</a> (24 March 2012). He wrote that “Herman Bavinck would be rolling around in his grave…if he found out how Jitse VanderMeer has used this statement (about the Bible not being a Science textbook) against his own strongly held beliefs.” He then offered three quotations from Bavinck’s “Creation or Development” (1901) to establish Bavinck’s strongly held belief that the theory of biological evolution should be rejected.<br />
<br />
Herman van Barneveld took me to use Bavinck in support of what he believes is my acceptance of the theory of biological evolution. However, I quoted Bavinck on the intent of Scripture in order to show my agreement with his view that the Bible was not written to serve as a source of information for the natural sciences. I wrote: “I refuse to use Scripture that way because it was not intended to provide information that satisfies the requirements of modern scholarship whether for history or for the natural sciences. This should not be misunderstood as rejecting its historicity. The crucial distinction was made by Dr. Herman Bavinck who stated:<br />
<blockquote>Holy Scripture has a purpose that is religious-ethical through and through. It is not designed to be a manual for various sciences. It is the first foundation (principium) only of theology and desires that we will read and study it theologically. In all the disciplines that are grouped around Scripture, our aim must be the saving knowledge of God. For that purpose Scripture offers us all the data needed. In that sense it is completely adequate and complete. But those who would infer from Scripture a history of Israel, a biography of Jesus, a history of Israel’s or early Christian literature, etc. will in each case end up disappointed. They will encounter lacunae that can be filled only with conjectures…. Scripture does not satisfy the demand for exact knowledge in the way we demand it in mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. This is a standard that may not be applied to it.[1]</blockquote>This crucial distinction refers back to my distinction between history as a scholarly discipline and history as presented in Scripture. That is the distinction Bavinck makes. I did not address the question whether Bavinck accepted the theory of biological evolution. I could leave it at that, but Herman van Barneveld uses the occasion to paint a one-sided picture of Bavinck’s views on science and faith. So, allow me to add a few observations.<br />
<br />
Herman van Barneveld refers to Bavinck’s “Creation or Development” (1901). But Bavinck wrote additional works on faith and scholarship. They include: H. Bavinck (1887) “Dualism in Theology” <i>De Vrije Kerk</i> 13: 11-39, reprinted in <i>Kennis en Leven. Opstellen en Artikelen uit Vroegere Jaren</i> Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922, pp. 145-64; H. Bavinck (1887) “Christianity and the Natural Sciences” <i>De Vrije Kerk</i> 13: 169-195, reprinted in <i>Kennis en Leven. Opstellen en Artikelen uit Vroegere Jaren</i>. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922, pp. 184-202; <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/images/products/large/images/9780801035760.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="267" src="http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/images/products/large/images/9780801035760.png" width="221" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bavinck's <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>H. Bavinck (2006 [1907]) “Evolution” In: <i>Essays on Religion, Science, and Society</i>, (J. Bolt ed.) tr. H. Boonstra and G. Sheeres, Grand Rapids. Baker Academic, pp. 105-118. Bavinck also wrote about the relationship of faith and knowledge in <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i>, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. A balanced overview of Bavinck’s views on faith and scholarship has been offered by Wolters (1996) and Oosterhoff (2002). See: Al Wolters, “Bavinck on Faith and Science” In: Jitse M. van der Meer (ed.) <i>Facets of Faith and Science</i>, Vol. 2: <i>The role of beliefs in mathematics and the natural sciences: an Augustinian perspective.</i> The Pascal Centre, Redeemer College, Ancaster / University Press of America, Lanham: 1996, pp. 33-52. What follows is a summary of some points made by Wolters (1996) and selected for their relevance to the issue at hand. This is supplemented by excellent background information offered in Freda Oosterhoff: “Faith and Science in the Reformed Tradition”, <i>Clarion</i> 51 (5): 105-108.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://large.bangzo.com/?SWBMDgxOTE5OTg5Mw==" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="238" src="http://large.bangzo.com/?SWBMDgxOTE5OTg5Mw==" width="152" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Facets of Faith & Science</i>, v. 2</td></tr>
</tbody></table>The main point Wolters makes and Oosterhoff confirms is that Bavinck failed to solve the problems associated with the engagement of Scripture and science. On the one hand, Bavinck held that the Bible is not intended to teach science (by ‘science’ Bavinck meant all scholarly disciplines, not just the natural sciences). On the other hand, the Bible does not separate itself from the concerns of theology and from those of the other scholarly disciplines. For Bavinck, the Bible speaks with authority on certain topics within the purview of science. But he never directly reveals the criteria he uses to decide which biblical statements have binding authority in scholarship.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.redeemer.ca/Media/Website%20Resources/images/faculty/al-wolters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="283" src="http://www.redeemer.ca/Media/Website%20Resources/images/faculty/al-wolters.jpg" width="176" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Al Wolters</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Wolters distinguishes in Bavinck a direct and an indirect bearing of Scripture on scholarship. The direct bearing of Scripture includes, for instance, its teaching on the origin of the universe and of humanity, the rise of the Christian church, and the future destiny of all things. According to Wolters, the indirect bearing of Scripture on scholarship is equally important and is mediated by philosophical categories or worldviews. Scholarship is bound to guiding ideas provided by worldviews and these in turn are bound to Scripture.<br />
<br />
Throughout his life, Bavinck opposed both the separation of faith and knowledge (dualism) and the use of Scripture texts as information sources in the scholarly disciplines (biblicism). But when everything is said and done, he does not offer a positive statement of his position. Wolters illustrates this with two quotations from <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i>. Bavinck starts with a saying of Cardinal Baronius to the effect that the Scriptures do not tell us how the heavens go, but how we go to heaven. In opposition to dualism, Bavinck points out that Scripture does have authority over scholarship:<br />
<blockquote>It is precisely as book of the knowledge of God that the Scriptures have a good deal to say also for the other sciences. The Scriptures are a light unto the path and a lamp unto the feet also of science and art. They lay claim to authority over every area of life…. A great deal of the content of Scripture is of fundamental significance for the other sciences as well. The Creation and Fall of man, the unity of the human race, the Flood, the rise of nations and languages, and so on, are facts that are also of the highest import for the other sciences.[2]</blockquote>But in the same breath Bavinck registers his opposition to biblicism:<br />
<blockquote>Yet, on the other hand there is also a great truth in the saying of Cardinal Baronius. It is true of all those facts as well that they are not communicated to us in and of themselves but with a theological purpose: that we might know God unto our salvation. Scripture never concerns itself with science as such…. The authors of the Holy Scriptures probably had no greater knowledge of all these sciences — geology, zoology, physiology, medicine, etc. — than had all their contemporaries.[3]</blockquote>Wolters concludes: “Throughout this pivotal section…we see Bavinck struggling to define his own position with reference to the two opposite extremes which he wishes to avoid. Unfortunately, he is clearer about the positions he rejects than about the positive position which he himself espouses. …It is not immediately clear what principles apply in deciding when it is appropriate to appeal to the authority of Scripture over science, and when such an appeal is not appropriate. To the best of my knowledge, Bavinck nowhere explicitly addresses that question.”<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, Wolters discerns in Bavinck two ways in which Scripture provides guidelines, namely for the special discipline of history, especially that of Israel and the ancient Near East as well as for the development of a Biblical worldview. Thus, the quotes Herman van Barneveld selected to argue that Bavinck used the Bible as a source of scientific information paint a one-sided picture of Bavinck’s views. Herman van Barneveld overlooks the fact that Bavinck did not solve the problems associated with the relationship of Scripture and science. This has contributed to the fact that the Reformed tradition was left open to polarization between extremes.<br />
<br />
Bavinck’s article was written in 1901 when there was little empirical evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution. Thus, Bavinck was correct in his negative assessment of the empirical evidence for Darwin’s theory at the start of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. We are living more than a century later and the empirical evidence has drastically improved. Herman van Barneveld’s comments are not relevant to my post which dealt with current science.<br />
<br />
Despite the scarcity of empirical evidence in the early 1900s, Bavinck did not always reject biological evolution <i>per se</i>. For example, in his “Evolution” of 1907 Bavinck acknowledged “the important elements of truth…in the theory of evolution and descent.” He concluded, “Provided that evolution is not understood in a mechanical sense, there is, therefore, no antithesis between creation and development” (p. 117). This was a common position at the time. The ‘mechanical sense’ likely refers to the Cartesian worldview with its notion that the universe came about by the random collision of atoms. Random here means without divine guidance. This was the worldview of evolutionism to which all Christians objected and still do. Thus we see Bavinck distinguishing between the worldview of evolutionism and the theory of biological evolution.<br />
<br />
Bavinck was correct in his critique of the philosophies of evolutionism and materialism. From the first printing of the <i>Origin</i>, people interpreted Darwin in terms of earlier philosophies of evolution such as those by Lamarck and Haeckel. The general population made no distinction between the theory of biological evolution and the philosophy of evolutionism. When we look at Bavinck’s response, we see him objecting to the philosophy of evolutionism or materialism as he himself indicates in the 1901 article cited by Herman van Barneveld. This, however, has little bearing on the theory of evolution which has to be justified by empirical evidence.<br />
<br />
Finally, I referred to Bavinck not because I think he should have the last word on the relationship of Scripture and scholarship. I referred to him because I believe no one in the Reformed tradition has improved on his views in this respect. If we want to improve on his views we should start with Herman Bavinck.<br />
<br />
<hr />[1] Bavinck, H. <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i>, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003, vol. 1, p. 444.<br />
<br />
[2] See “Herman Bavinck on Scripture and Science,” tr. Al Wolters, <i>Calvin Theological Journal</i> 27: 91-95 (1992), p. 92. This is a translation of <i>Gereformeerde Dogmatiek</i> (4<sup>th</sup> ed. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1928).<br />
<br />
[3] Bavinck, “Scripture and Science,” pp. 92-93.Jitse van der Meerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02564632094598243894noreply@blogger.com6Ancaster, Hamilton, ON, Canada43.2177791 -79.987283543.1714926 -80.0662475 43.2640656 -79.9083195tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-6342282775667964482012-06-11T09:30:00.000-07:002012-06-11T09:30:01.117-07:00The “Books” of Scripture and NatureThe metaphor of the “two books” is well known among Reformed people, especially through the work of John Calvin. Article 2 of the Belgic Confession also makes use of it. True, it does not speak of “two books” but of “two means” by which we know God. But it goes on to describe the first of these means, namely what we observe about God in nature, “as a most beautiful book,” much as Calvin did.<br />
<br />
The fact that Scripture and nature have a common author has often led to the conclusion that there must be factual agreement between what Scripture and science tell us about the physical world, and it therefore goes a long way in explaining the efforts that have been made over the centuries to harmonize the two books. This was done in the past and is still being done today, both by young-earth creationists and by various Christians who hold to an older earth and cosmos. In <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2004197800618234561" link="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF3-10VandenBerg.pdf">her article</a> “What General Revelation Does (and Does Not) Tell Us” [<i>Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith</i> (March 2010), v. 62, n. 1, pp. 16-24], Mary L. Vandenberg, who teaches Systematic Theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, evaluates this understanding of the two-books metaphor and finds it wanting.<br />
<br />
She focuses on two questions in connection with the tradition, namely: “(1) How much concordance is there between what the Bible and science tell us about the nature of the physical world? and (2) how much concordance is there is between what the Bible and science tell us about God?” and answers that the two-books metaphor offers an answer only to the second question, not to the first. Rather than informing us about the structure, properties, and operations of nature, Scripture reveals (like nature) the existence, wisdom, and power of God. This is in accordance with the teaching of John Calvin, who, when speaking of the knowledge we can gain from the two books, “is especially addressing the knowledge of God available in nature and in the Bible, not knowledge in general.” Calvin was following the apostle Paul who wrote that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom. 1: 20).<br />
<br />
Calvin adds that because of the fall humanity is blinded and no longer able to see the evidence of God in creation, and that therefore God has graciously provided us with “spectacles,” namely his special revelation. If we use these spectacles, we will clearly see that the author of the book of creation is indeed God. It is not so, Vandenberg warns, that we need the lenses of Scripture for a proper interpretation of scientific data. “When we read the book of nature apart from the corrective lenses of Scripture,” she writes, “it is not that our scientific findings will necessarily go awry. Rather, the knowledge of God that can be obtained from the physical world will be corrupted.” In the words of geologist Davis Young, whom she quotes, “Christians have typically understood ‘general revelation’ as having to do with science. Again, however, the idea is not that <i>data</i> are divinely revealed but that <i>God</i> is revealed through the created order.”<br />
<br />
<i>Where do we go from here?</i><br />
<br />
If Vandenberg’s analysis is accurate — and there seems to be little reason to doubt it — Christian scientists will be wise to dispense with the metaphor as a justification for concordist attempts. Scripture, which contains God’s revelation to people of all historical periods and all cultures, does not reveal to us the findings of modern science. To assume that it does is, to borrow an expression from C.S. Lewis, a blatant case of chronological snobbery — the belief that our period and culture and achievements are ultimate. If we want to find the properties of science, we have to turn to nature, not to Scripture. This is indeed common sense. It does not, however, answer the question which inspired the concordist use of the two-books metaphor in the first place — namely that concerning the relationship between the written Word and the discoveries of to-day’s science. That continues to be an urgent question. Vandenberg admits this when in her conclusion she writes that “some level of reconciliation between the findings of science and Scripture would, at the very least, be existentially helpful.”<br />
<br />
I hope that this question will receive the attention it deserves also in our own Reformed community. When we are considering it, we will do well to keep in mind that throughout church history believers have, in the end, assumed the priority of science. To quote Peter J. Wallace, “In all of the historical debates regarding the relationship between science and theology, science has taken the lead in provoking theologians to reconsider their exegesis. The quest for harmonization with science has led theologians and pastors to reject the theories of a lucid moon and a solid <i>raqi’a</i> [firmament], and adopt theories of the four elements*, a spherical earth, heliocentrism, and Day-Age and Gap theories of the creation days. In none of these cases did the transformation begin with exegetical work. Exegetical arguments have invariably followed from philosophical and scientific arguments that caused the church to reconsider the traditional exegesis.” [Peter J. Wallace, “The Doctrine of Creation in the History of the Church” <a href="http://peterwallace.org/essays/history.htm">direct link</a>; Wallace’s pieces are listed in our “Collected Papers”]<br />
<br />
The question is urgent and difficult, not least in view of recent scientific findings in paleontology and genomics, yet the quest must continue. Whatever the outcome, we are well served by following Vandenberg’s twofold concluding advice. The first one is that theologians “should neither be too eager to reinterpret the Bible in order to make sense of the latest scientific data, nor too eager to disregard the findings of science in order to make sense of certain biblical texts. Rather, they should read with excitement the latest results of scientific inquiry. As Scott Hoezee writes, ‘Christians, of all people, can take proper, holy joy in such things, giving glory to God for a universe so wondrous and endlessly surprising.’” And scientists, she writes, “should not be overly anxious to reinterpret various biblical texts, the purpose of which is to offer humans saving knowledge of God, in an effort to harmonize the Bible with the findings of science…. The result of all our endeavours should be that we join with the ancient psalmist…who gazed at the starry skies and with wonder declared, ‘O <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!’ (Psalm 8: 1, 9). In that way, the work of the scientist, the work of the theologian, and the work of any other vocation is identical: to bring glory to God.”<br />
<br />
<hr>*<span style="font-size: x-small;">This expression refers to the ancient Greek scientific understanding of the universe as consisting of four elements, namely earth, water, air, and fire. That understanding, Wallace says in this same piece, “was nearly universal among Christian commentators from the early church through the reformation, and remained the dominant paradigm throughout the seventeenth century among Reformed theologians.” He adds that one means of harmonizing this description with Scripture was to distinguish between the first three days which narrate the creation of the four elements: fire (light), air (firmament), water (seas), and earth (land); and the second three days which speak of the creation of things out of those elements.</span>Frederika Oosterhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06340388418031783192noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-15512533970875286712012-03-24T15:05:00.000-07:002013-05-22T08:52:03.234-07:00More about Origin and Operation Science<div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">In their 1987 book entitled <i><span lang="EN-US">Origin Science</span></i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">,[1] Norman Geisler and Kerby Anderson introduced a distinction between ‘operation science’ and ‘origin science’. They argued that operation or empirical science handles regular events while origin or historical science deals with singular events.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">This is the distinction that Dr. John Byl relies on when in <a href="http://bylogos.blogspot.ca/2012/03/science-history-and-bible.html" target="_blank">a recent post</a> he highlights the subjectivity of research into the past as opposed to the objectivity of research into the present. Dr. Byl writes: “The central point of my book was that scientific theory--particularly in origin (or historical) science--is highly subjective and driven by worldview considerations. A Christian epistemology should thus give prime weight to Scripture, logic and observation. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are fallible human constructs that should be evaluated in the light of the former.” Further, “The science used to build airplanes is of a rather different nature than the claim that man evolved from apes. To wit, we must distinguish between operation science and historical science:”[2]</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Dr. Byl rejects origin science because it is stained by the subjectivity of worldview influences. The status of operation science is left unclear. Operation science is also fallible. Nevertheless it is placed beside Scripture as far more reliable than origin science. However that may be, he recommends, the better approach is to rely on Scripture, logic and observation. I have divided the problems with this approach into three groups. In Part A I argue that operation science is not a safe haven because it is as subjective as origin science. So why should one trust operation science? In Part B I will offer reasons for its trustworthiness. But this trustworthiness is not without limits. Part C concludes with some thoughts about the role of Scripture.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span lang="EN-US">Part A: The subjectivity of operation science</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">The distinction between research into the past and that into the present is one of degree, not of kind. Beginning with Hume, philosophers of science have acknowledged that scientific investigation of current events relies on past experience. This is known as the problem of induction. This simply means that human experience is limited in principle and that scientific knowledge has no absolute certainty. This holds for both origin and operation science.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091019234959/genealogy/images/thumb/9/9f/Michaelpolanyi1-2.jpg/375px-Michaelpolanyi1-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091019234959/genealogy/images/thumb/9/9f/Michaelpolanyi1-2.jpg/375px-Michaelpolanyi1-2.jpg" width="155" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Michael Polanyi</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Origin science is not any more subjective than operation science on account of worldviews. Beginning with Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn, historians and philosophers of science have shown that scientific knowledge depends not only on the object studied, but also on what the scientists bring to this study such as religious and metaphysical beliefs, ideological and political agendas and the like. This applies irrespective of whether the investigation involves current or past events.[3] Dr. Byl recommends the solution to the subjectivity of origin science is to “give prime weight to Scripture, logic and observation.” as if they are not affected by subjectivity. Let us take a brief look at the subjectivity of observation, logic and theory in that order.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Observations in science can be classified into two groups – those predicted by theory and those made accidentally. Both types of observation are subjective because they are always seen in terms of what one already knows whether that is a theory or a worldview. I will deal with theory-guided observation below and focus here on the role of worldview. We can take the perception of pendulum movement in the Aristotelian and Galilean worldviews as an example from physics. The world according to Aristotle consists of earth, water, air and fire. A body falls according to the proportion of earth it contains because earth has the natural tendency to move down as opposed to fire which moves up. Thus the pendulum movement of a rock at the end of a rope is seen as falling with difficulty. In contrast, the late medieval philosopher-bishop Nicolas Oresme described the pendulum motion of the rock in terms of a force implanted in the rock by the person who gives it a swing (the ‘impetus’). Galileo adopted this view and saw a body that almost succeeded in repeating the same pendulum motion. This led him to see other properties of the pendulum on the basis of which he developed the law of independence of weight and rate of fall as well as the law of the relationship between vertical height and terminal velocity of motions down inclined planes.[4]</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/15/1501/S4BBD00Z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/15/1501/S4BBD00Z.jpg" width="238" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">William Herschel</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Examples of the subjectivity of observation abound. One example is the story of the discovery in 1781 of the planet Uranus by William Herschel. Records show that the best astronomers in Europe had seen this luminous body before 1781 and recorded the observation as a star. After 1781 and using the same quality telescopes suddenly other new planets were discovered. The subjectivity of observation is revealed by the fact that the post-1781 astronomers had learned that new planets could be discovered while the pre-1781 had not.[5] A second example concerns fossil shells which since ancient times have been reported in the Egyptian desert and on the mountaintops of Switzerland and the Andes. Given these locations they could not possibly be imagined to have originated in the sea. Aristotle saw them as growing spontaneously in the ground. Renaissance Platonists saw them as copies of the eternal Forms. Steno first saw them as remnants of living things. Finally, individuals who contributed to the discovery of what is now known as oxygen gas identified it as ‘fixed air’ (carbon dioxide), nitrous air, atmospheric or common air, dephlogisticated air and, finally, oxygen. Kuhn concludes among others that “Observation and conceptualization, fact and the assimilation of fact to theory, are inseparably linked in the discovery of scientific novelty.”[6] There is nothing surprising in this. One sees the unknown in terms of what one already knows or thinks to know.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Thomas_Kuhn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="163" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Thomas_Kuhn.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Thomas Kuhn</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Byl writes: “In science, reliable observational data always trumps theories. After all, theories are constructed to explain reality.” The historian of science Thomas Kuhn and others have drawn attention to the fact that in science reliable observational data do not always trump paradigms and this also applies to theories. When an anomalous observation is made one of three things may happen: (1) the paradigm or theory is rejected, (2) a decision is postponed and judgment is suspended, and the paradigm or theory is retained because it is supported by multiple lines of independent evidence, (3) the paradigm or theory is amended.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">The theory of continental drift is a good example. Before its introduction by Wegener in 1912 geologists worked within a paradigm in which the continents were static. The anomalous observation was that the outlines of S. America and Africa matched like pieces in a puzzle. Moreover, the continents shared identical strata with identical fossils in them. These observations also applied to other continents. But there were no known forces that could move these continents apart. Geologists suspended judgment or rejected Wegener’s theory until the 1960s when new observations tipped the balance in his favour. For details, see <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html" target="_blank">this website</a>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Rejecting a theory or a paradigm may block research. Hence the second and third response to an anomalous observation. These responses occur because theory guides observation. It does so because a theory logically contains observation statements. These are the observations predicted by the theory. Such observations are logically inferred from the theory. When actual observations differ from the predicted one, the theory is rejected. Otherwise the theory is submitted to more tests. For example:</span></div><ul style="font-family: inherit;"><li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;"><i>Theory: </i>All cats have five legs</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;"><i>Deduction: </i>My cat has five legs</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;"><i>Observation: </i>My cat has four legs</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;"><i>Conclusion: </i>Not all cats have five legs (rejected theory)</span></li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">If my cat had five legs, then the theory would be considered acceptable. This means that for any given theory a large collection of potential observations remains out of sight because they are not logically implied by the theory. No one is going to count legs in horses. A theory is like a search light – it reveals a small circumscribed area and leaves the rest in the dark. There is no logical cure for this incompleteness because this is the nature of science both of the past and of the present. The need for observations to be relevant for a theory means that they are theory-laden. Observations are also worldview-laden as mentioned above.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Byl’s cursory mention of logic is unhelpful as it stands. If he means inductive logic, then he must remember Popper’s point that one cannot move logically from an observation to an observation statement since the former is a psychological event while the latter is a logical entity. If he were to disagree with Popper, his next problem would be that the conclusions will depend crucially on whether the observations were correct and complete. The role of theory just indicated virtually guarantees that the observations are incomplete. On the other hand, if Byl is referring to deductive logic the conclusions depend on whether the premises are correct and that in turn depends again on the completeness of the observations on which the premise is based.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span lang="EN-US">Part B: The trustworthiness of origin science</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.opc.org/images/auto_images/review/1233188940rocks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.opc.org/images/auto_images/review/1233188940rocks.jpg" width="204" /></a></div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">The explanation of singular events in the past relies as much on regularities as the explanation of singular as well as regular events in the present. This is the point of forensic science mentioned in <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2012/03/origin-science-and-operation-science.html" target="_blank">Sikkema’s blog post</a>. Forensic entomology studies the insects and other bugs found in corpses, the sequence in which they appear, the kinds of insects, and the stage in their life cycle in which they are found are clues that suggest the time of death, the length of a corpse’s exposure, and whether the corpse was moved. In a murder case, for instance, the time of death can be estimated by determining the stage of development of insect larvae deposited on the body, the known rate of their development and the temperature. A critique consistent with scientific creationists’ rejection of radiometric dating would be that forensic scientists assume the constancy of the rate of development of insects. The equivalent critique of radiometric dating by young earth creationists is that the rates of radioactive decay are not constant. But such assumptions are always checked by using independent lines of evidence. In our forensic example such checks would include the last time a phone call was made or the victim was seen in the bank. In the case of radiometric dating the so-called whole rock method neutralizes assumptions about initial quantities of isotopes. The independent lines of evidence come from isotope ratios measured in different samples of a whole body of rock – hence the name.[7] Independent lines of evidence increase the confidence one has in the correctness of the reconstruction of the past because the different lines of evidence cannot be accounted for as the result of a single common cause. The more independent lines of evidence the less likely it is that they accidentally converge on the same conclusion.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">The same applies to reconstructions of the history of life on earth. For instance, the evolution of fruit flies on the Hawaiian Islands has been reconstructed using chromosome mutations. The relative age of the islands has been determined by radiometric dating. The sequence of their formation by volcanic action has been established on the basis of the North-Western movement of the continental plate of which they are part. Chromosome mutations, radiometric dating and continental drift are mutually independent lines of evidence. They are also independent of any evolutionary paradigm. They all converge on the same reconstruction of the history of fruit fly evolution. For more on this example and on independent lines of evidence, see van der Meer, J.M. “Ideology and Science”, <i>Reformed Academic</i>, 16 August 2010 (links: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/143010645/Ideology-and-Science-by-Jitse-van-der-Meer" target="_blank">full paper</a> & <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.ca/2010/08/ideology-and-science.html" target="_blank">introductory blog post</a>).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">According to Dr. Byl, “Operational science calculates forward, deducing effects from causes, whereas historical science calculates backwards, inferring past causes from present clues. One problem here is that more than one possible historical cause can give rise to the same effect.” This, however, is also a difference of degree, not of kind. In operation science, experiments aimed at changing the rate of movement of tectonic plates are as much beyond human possibilities as experiments in the past. Nevertheless, predictions are possible. This also applies to the history of pouched mammals (marsupials) mentioned by Sikkema. In that light Byl’s distinction between forward and backward prediction carries little weight in preferring ‘operation science’ over ‘origin science’. Moreover, in operation science there are an unlimited number of theories that can account for a set of observations just like in origin science more than one possible cause can produce the same effect.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">In conclusion, Dr. Byl is incorrect in singling out origin science for its subjectivity. Operation science is just as subjective. This conclusion has earned Thomas Kuhn the reputation of being a relativist. The response of Feyerabend was to throw up his hands and say anything goes.[8] Still others such as scientific creationists have taken this as a licence to build a science with what they call a Christian content. These responses must be rejected from a Christian point of view. Here the doctrine of creation is essential. I believe that God created a reality that exists independent of human cognition. This means that we have the religious duty to try to eliminate the role of worldviews that direct us away from knowledge of this objectively existing reality. This is how a central theme in Scripture can shape science at the worldview level. It is worthwhile to put this conclusion in a wider perspective. There are two traditions in the interpretation of the Book of Scripture. In the biblicistic tradition the Bible plays a direct role. Texts are used out of context as source of scientific information about nature (geocentricity, Scriptural geology). In the perspectival tradition, on the other hand, the Bible serves indirectly by providing a general view or perspective on nature (nature as purposive, as contingent, as existing objectively). I recommend the latter because it does not fall into the mistake of treating Scripture texts as if they were intended to give information about nature that satisfies the standards of science.[9]</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span lang="EN-US">Part C: Scripture and science</span></i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">In recommending the use of Scripture in historical science Dr. Byl overlooks the fact that the interpretation of Scripture suffers as much from subjectivity as science does. After all, subjectivity is a human characteristic. This may be seen in those cases where a faulty interpretation of Scripture shaped scientific understanding. In the history of biogeography, the belief that Noah’s flood was global was taken to imply that plants and animals had spread from a single centre on mount Ararat. This was used to account for their spread across the globe. But the facts could not be accounted for and so the information taken from Scripture was abandoned. Further, there was a theological debate in the sixteenth century about the incarnation, the details of which are beyond the scope of this article. But in that debate the anabaptist Menno Simons took the literalist position “that Levi was still in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchisedec came to meet him (Hebrews 7:10) as an indication that the father is the true origin of the child. The same point he found demonstrated in II Samuel 7:12, where David was told by God, ‘I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body.’” We now know that the father is not the sole origin of a child. In the history of geology, Neptunism – the school that tried to explain the features of the earth in terms of the action of water – was inspired by the story of Noah’s Flood. Despite far-fetched attempts by flood geologists no evidence for a global flood has been found.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Contemporary scientific creationism provides more examples. Dr. Byl writes: “The Bible makes clear that there can be non-material causes (i.e., spiritual beings can cause physical effects) and that God’s sovereignty over the world includes the possibility of miracles and changes in physical “laws” (e.g., perhaps during the creation week, after the Fall, at the time of the Flood, after the return of Christ, etc.). This in itself already negates the presumptions inherent in mainstream historical science.”</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">I agree that spiritual beings can cause physical effects and that God performs miracles. But Dr. Byl engages in stunning speculation when he suggests that changes in the laws of physics might have occurred during the creation week, after the Fall, and at the time of the Flood. This is what the use of the Bible as a scientific textbook leads to. On the one hand Dr. Byl insists that we should stick to the Bible for knowledge on the history of the laws of physics and of life on earth. On the other hand, he goes beyond what Scripture warrants and gives free reign to his imagination. How much better is that than the origin science he rejects?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/HermanBavinckBig.jpg/200px-HermanBavinckBig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/HermanBavinckBig.jpg/200px-HermanBavinckBig.jpg" width="156" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Herman Bavinck</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">Byl’s suggestion that historical science should be bounded by Scriptural truths overlooks the fact that historically mistaken interpretations and overinterpretations of Scripture have served in that capacity and undermined the authority of Scripture when they were proven wrong. It was the use of Scripture ‘as any other book’, that is as a source of information for research on nature and history that led to higher biblical criticism. I refuse to use Scripture that way because it was not intended to provide information that satisfies the requirement of modern scholarship whether for history or for the natural sciences. This should not be misunderstood as rejecting its historicity. The crucial distinction was made by Dr. Herman Bavinck who stated: “Holy Scripture has a purpose that is religious-ethical through and through. It is not designed to be a manual for various sciences. It is the first foundation (<i>principium</i>) only of theology and desires that we will read and study it <i>theologically</i>. In all the disciplines that are grouped around Scripture, our aim must be the saving knowledge of God. For <i>that</i> purpose Scripture offers us all the data needed. In <i>that </i>sense it is completely adequate and complete. But those who would infer from Scripture a history of Israel, a biography of Jesus, a history of Israel’s or early Christian literature, etc. will in each case end up disappointed. They will encounter lacunae that can be filled only with conjectures…. Scripture does not satisfy the demand for exact knowledge in the way we demand it in mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. This is a standard that may not be applied to it.”[10] In sum, the history in Scripture satisfies the intent of its Author, not that of historians.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><hr /><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[1] Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[2] Byl, John. <i>God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe</i>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;"> Banner of Truth, 2001.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[3] Brooke, J. H. (1991) <i>Science and religion: some historical perspectives</i>. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge; Van der Meer, J.M. Ed. <i>Facets of Faith and Science.</i> 4 vols. The Pascal Centre for Advanced Studies in Faith and Science / University Press of America. Lanham: 1996; Brooke, J.H., Osler, M.J., Van der Meer, J.M. (Eds.) </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span lang="EN-GB">Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions</span></i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: small;">. Osiris 16. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 2001; Alexander, Denis R. and Numbers, Ronald L. eds. </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span lang="EN-US">Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins</span></i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">. Chicago. University of Chicago Press: 2010.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[4] Galileo Galilei, <i>Dialogues concerning two new sciences</i>, trans. H. Crew and A. De Salvio. Evanston, Ill, 1946, pp. 80-81, 162-66). More examples in Kuhn, Thomas, <i>The structure of scientific revolution</i>, 2<sup>nd</sup> ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1970. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[5] Based on Kuhn, Thomas S. “Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery.” <i>Science</i>, 136 (3518) June 1, 1962, 760-764.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[6] Kuhn, Thomas S. “Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery.” <i>Science</i>, 136 (3518) June 1, 1962, 760-764.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[7] Young, Davis A., Stearley, Ralph. <i>The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth</i>. InterVarsity Press Academic, Downers Grove, Ill. 2008, Chs. 14 and 15. <a href="http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=2876" target="_blank">link</a> <a href="http://www.opc.org/review.html?review_id=204" target="_blank">review</a> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[8] Feyerabend, P. <i>Against Method</i>. London: Verso, 1975.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[9] Van der Meer, J.M. “Interpreting Nature and Scripture: A New Proposal for their Interaction.” In: </span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span lang="EN-GB">Christianity and the Human Body: A Theology of the Human Body</span></i></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: small;">. eds. Robert Brungs, SJ and Marianne Postiglione, RSM, The ITEST Faith/Science Press: St. Louis, Missouri. 2001, pp. 38-72.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit; margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: small;">[10] Bavinck, H. <i>Reformed Dogmatics</i>, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003, vol. 1, p. 444; italics in the original.</span></div>Jitse van der Meerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02564632094598243894noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-38943897574641990612012-03-14T06:30:00.000-07:002013-05-22T16:00:04.234-07:00Origin Science and Operation Science<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span lang="EN-US">It’s 7:45am and my middle-school-aged daughter, despite a few knocks on her door, still hasn’t appeared for breakfast. Since the bus comes in 25 minutes, I finally check her room, only to find she’s not there — or indeed anywhere in the house! Her jacket and shoes which I saw at the entrance last night are missing too. After a few calls to some friends, I phone the police. But by the time they arrive, I confess that my memories, my documents and photos, and the things in “her” room in my house do not <u>prove</u> that I have a daughter. And thus I decide to drop the matter, and go on living as if “my daughter” never really existed.</span></i><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">The shock you experience upon the reaction of the father in this little story is exactly what I and my scientist friends, Christian or not, experience when we’re told (by Christians!) that we can safely disregard all scientific evidence about the past.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">For the last century or so, atheists have claimed that there is an absolute and irreconcilable conflict between modern science and the Bible. Surprising as it may seem at first glance, increasing numbers of orthodox Christians agree with these atheists. Of course, the reaction of the two groups differs. The first celebrates the great achievements and the rapid advances of modern science, using them as evidence of science’s truthfulness. The second group, on the other hand, attempts to cast doubt on any scientific theory that appears to be in conflict with Biblical revelation. This applies primarily to theories that claim a greater age of the earth and the cosmos than a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 seems to allow. Most other scientific theories — especially those that have important technological implications, are welcomed, but only because they are useful. The fact that science gives us an increasingly better understanding of the universe God created, that this knowledge enables us to magnify and glorify the Creator, and that the study of science is therefore an important part of the cultural mandate, is ignored.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">To safeguard the conviction that, according to Scripture, the earth and the universe are only six to ten thousand years old while science claims ages amounting to billions of years, there is a tendency among Young-Earth Creationists to distinguish between “origin science” and “operation science”.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">The claim that there is a sharp difference between these two is also found in John Byl, <i>God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe</i> (Banner of Truth, 2001). One of the main goals of that book, and of Byl’s writings in general, is to suggest that the claims of modern science about the history of the cosmos are irrelevant, so that Christians can be reassured that the so-called “traditional interpretation” of Scripture on matters of earth and cosmic history is correct. And so in the last pages of the book, one finds a commendation of a “distinction between <i>origin</i> and <i>operation</i> science… The latter is concerned with repeatable events, the former with singularities such as creation” (p. 213). [Note: </span>For an insightful review of Byl’s book by a Reformed theologian, see C. John Collins, <i>Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review</i> v. 29, n. 1 (2003), pp. 56-59, available online via our “Collected Papers” or directly <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/143006907/Review-of-Byl-God-and-Cosmos-by-C-John-Collins" target="_blank">here</a>.]<span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">The idea is that “operation science” is a worthy enterprise, because we can do repeated experiments, while “origin science” should be dismissed because it relates to events of the past on which experiments cannot be done. That is, Christians are told they can safely ignore all results of scientific inquiry into the history of the cosmos.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span lang="EN-US">What is Origin Science?</span></i><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Science in our day is widely seen as having special authority, being a respectable and dependable source of knowledge. Many voices rightly acknowledge the limited character of science, for it is unable to speak to matters of value, purpose, meaning, beauty, morality, etc. It is true that some strident atheists claim the contrary and continue to press the notion that science is the only source of truth in all areas of life, but it is important to realize that this claim itself cannot be supported by science! Nevertheless, science does have significant validity particularly because of its systematic way of self-correcting through peer review and because of the worldwide community’s involvement, with scientists of all religions and cultures represented.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Because of this high regard for science, some wish to remove “origin science” from the field of science. The idea is that science is supposed to be experimental, and since origins looks back in time it deals with matters that cannot be reproduced in the lab and so should not be considered science. This includes especially the field of paleontology (studying the fossil record, including the use of radioactivity and geology) as well as astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology (these deal with stars and galaxies whose light often takes many years to reach us). These are the disciplines, after all, which have been marshalling the evidence that life has been around for about ¾ of the earth’s 4.54-billion-year history, and that the universe itself is about 13.75 billion years old. And these ages are supposed to contradict a “plain sense” or “traditional” reading of Scripture.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Now, it is quite difficult to define exactly what science is, but its empirical character is indeed key. That is, theories in science are to be tested against the actual world. But does that mean science must be experimental and repeatable? Not really.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">The Value of Historical Science<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US">Our observations in the present, and collected observations over millennia past, can in fact help us to uncover features of the universe today, give us insight into past events, and even serve our neighbour. Continental drift is an example in geology. Multiple lines of evidence, with different observations, assumptions, and methods, lead to a common conclusion. Two years ago, the magazine <i>Modern Reformation</i> featured <a href="http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1137&var3=issuedisplay&var4=IssRead&var5=112">an article</a> </span>which gave details on how the spreading rate of the mid-Atlantic ridge matches the rock ages measured via radioactive decay. And this is all intimately coupled with our understanding of the dynamic structure of the earth (with its crust, mantle, and core), which is used routinely to measure earthquakes and save lives by sending out tsunami warnings.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/biogeog/pics/har1924a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/biogeog/pics/har1924a.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">A biology colleague pointed out that the so-called “origin science” of continental drift, far from being speculation, fantasy, or a “parlour game”, actually leads to predictions which can be verified. See, for example, this 30-year-old <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/21/us/antarctica-yields-first-land-mammal-fossil.html">piece</a> in the NY Times; a later scientific journal article is W.J. Zinsmeister, “Cretaceous Paleogeography of Antarctica”, <i>Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology</i>, v. 59 (1987), pp. 197–206, online <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031018287900794">here</a>. Research on the history of life can make predictions that have been confirmed. In this case the theory of continental drift and the theory that marsupial mammals migrated from South America to Australia via the Antarctic continent are the basis for the prediction that one might find fossil marsupials on the Antarctic continent. As the newspaper article reported, this prediction was confirmed.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Why Is Origin Science Considered Unreliable?<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Some scientists, especially when making public pronouncements as high-priests for atheism, appeal to their audience by way of all kinds of proof claims. One hears arguments that because the big bang theory is solidly proven, people had better give in, get on board, and join in assent. There are two ways to address such claims.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">One response is to deny that the big bang (e.g.) is proven. That is, we can quickly discard any theory, conclusion, or statement of origin science by pointing out that there is not, and can never be, any real proof of them; after all, they cannot be repeated in an experimental context. But this response is actually not helpful, and is in fact misleading. For the appeal against proof is in fact a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the nature of science.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">The appropriate response to dogmatic proof claims is to note that in science <i>proof</i> is not even in view. While in the field of <i>mathematics</i>, proving theorems within axiomatic systems is indeed a cornerstone, in <i>science</i> one works with theories and weighs evidence in favour of or in opposition to them. And so both the claim that science has proven something, and the claim that something has not been or cannot be proven, can be ignored. It’s not about proof!<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Thus the claim that origin science cannot offer proof actually offers false comfort to those who feel threatened by the discoveries of modern science, especially as the rhetoric of warfare between science and Christianity has grown through the relentless efforts of both Young-Earth Creationism and what might be called the “scientific atheist” movement. One must instead replace the notion of proof within science to one of weighing the evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Origin Science Does Not Exist<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">One distinction which is often not made is that between <i>origin</i> and <i>history</i>. Origin science <i>per se</i> does not actually even exist, except as a limit upon what science can hope to achieve, indeed a limit of which Christians in the sciences (or Christians speaking about science) ought to be acutely aware. It may be debatable among Christians whether studying the history of the universe or any feature of it has any value or reliability (I say it does have both), but science clearly does reach a point where nothing more can be said which is in any way amenable to the methods of scientific investigation. Where does something come from in the final analysis? What is its absolute origin? How did it come to be in the first place? Why does it have the particular characteristics it has? These questions are answerable in the ultimate sense only with reference to the specific creative work of God. Everything is contingent upon him. (Of course, God is to be acknowledged not just for creation, but also for his providential and covenantally faithful sustaining, and especially for his personal relationship with humanity.)<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">In cosmology, the big bang theory does not actually address the <i>origin</i> of the universe, but only its early development. No one claims to know why the big bang occurred, what triggered it, what conditions were present prior to it, either theoretically or observationally. In fact, cosmologists clearly state that they cannot address anything in the first 10<sup>−43</sup> seconds: beyond the first tenth of a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, nothing is known. Biology (especially through paleontology and comparative genomics) may investigate the historical development of living things, but cannot hope to make much progress in scientific investigations of the actual <i>origin</i> or <i>existence</i> of life due to the contingencies and singularities involved.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Every origin story in history (the origin of the universe, or of stars & galaxies, the solar system, earth, life, humanity, or you as an individual) can only be so by virtue of the cosmos being created by God with its divinely ordained lawfulness and coherence. This lawfulness and coherence can only be taken as a given without which science cannot function. But God is also personally involved in all events that occurred in history, as Scriptures clearly reveal. All is contingent upon him.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Past and Present Connected<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">And so perhaps people who refer to “origin science” just mean “historical science”, but let’s keep using their term.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://subversiveinfluence.com/images/blogposts/coffee-conversation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://subversiveinfluence.com/images/blogposts/coffee-conversation.jpg" width="200" /></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Enforcing a sharp distinction between origin and operation science would demand that we as humans can know nothing about the past at all, and by extension can know nothing in the present. All human knowledge relies upon past experiences, and while an individual person cannot be absolutely confident about everything he or she remembers, communities have a way of mutually reinforcing what occurred in the past. The idea that we must remain agnostic about the past from a scientific point of view is inconsistent with the God-given confidence we as humans can have in assessing anything at all. The origin-<i>vs.</i>-operation approach when taken consistently endorses a radical skepticism and extreme doubt. If I look out of my window and see a tree, or share personal memories with a friend over coffee, must I really immediately recognize that these perceptions could easily be caused by any number of other alternative realities which must equally be embraced? Sounds like post-modernism in hyper-drive!<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Instead, we can trust that God has created and sustains this world as a true reality of which he graciously and faithfully allows us to have true experiences. We can be confident (not in the positivistic or triumphalistic sense, but appropriately qualified and tempered in a critical realist way), and not forever wallow in the pit of existential despair into which we are cast if we succumb to the irrelevant notion of proof.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">If we abandon our connection with the past, as that approach actually demands by consistency, and if instead we trust only that which we can prove (which, of course, is nothing except within the limited axiomatic systems of mathematics), then we must forbid forensic science and witness interviews in police investigations, as well as archaeology, not to mention medical science, cartography, meteorology, genealogical records. We also lose Biblical revelation, as Christianity is a religion rooted in the history of God’s redeeming action narrated in Scripture. The Christian in today’s society, including in science, can gratefully acknowledge God’s goodness and faithfulness, apart from which we can do nothing, but because of which we can approach our calling, and indeed our whole life, with confidence in his sustenance and providence, and confidence in a reality he has created and upholds.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">The Continuity of Origin Science with Operation Science<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Crab_Nebula.jpg/240px-Crab_Nebula.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Crab_Nebula.jpg/240px-Crab_Nebula.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Remnants of a supernova first seen<br />
in 1054, though the explosion happened<br />
six to nine thousand years ago.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">In both what are called “origin science” and “operation science”, the key feature of science is evident: science uses empirical evidence in the development and communal assessment of theories. In both cases, predictions are made: if we see a certain flux of neutrinos we can predict that light from an exploding star will soon be seen, even if this supernova occurred a hundred thousand years ago. If we measure the time period of a Cepheid variable star, we can expect it to have a certain absolute brightness, allowing us to assign a distance to its host galaxy. We can then confirm whether other Cepheid variable stars, or supernovae, found later in that galaxy match this distance. Measurements via one form of radioactive decay, using one set of methods and assumptions, can be confirmed via another form, using quite different methods and assumptions, either in the same or a nearby rock or fossil. Internal consistency between observations is required, as is consistency with other more well-established scientific principles.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">Recently there was lots of publicity about an experiment that claimed to show neutrinos traveling faster than light. Most physicists did not have much confidence in this result for various reasons; one was the well-established special theory of relativity, and another was because of “origin science” in which we have experience with neutrino <i>vs.</i> light speed by studying star explosions from 170,000 years ago. The current status of the neutrino speed experiment in question is that a loose cable was found, calling into further doubt the original claim.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: inherit;">The point is that in both experimental and observational science, scientists employ the very same methods, habits, assumptions, expectations, tools, theories, principles, etc., and so it is not possible to maintain a useful distinction between them.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Challenge of Origin Science<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If a “traditional interpretation” of Scripture indicates that the universe was created in 4004 BC, much of what is discovered via historical science challenges this. Is our response going to be one of fear, or trust? This is God’s world, and we can humbly and boldly explore his creation as we are called and equipped to do, without resorting to radical skepticism or proclaiming that science can say nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We at <i>Reformed Academic</i> are not interested in re-interpreting Scripture on the basis of modern science. But scientific discoveries can lead us to ask whether we have placed upon Scripture, perhaps due to earlier scientific or philosophical ideas, an interpretation which is not warranted by Scripture itself and which was not possible for its authors or first hearers. It is troubling that in our own Canadian Reformed community there are growing voices that adopt scientific creationism (and/or its methods, outlook, and conclusions) as if it is <i>the</i> stance required by Reformed Christianity; that approach gives false hope as it dangerously makes what is often pseudo-science the reason for confidence in Scripture. But we are encouraged that in the broader Reformed Christian community, which is arguably more in continuity with what our own Canadian Reformed community historically has accepted, there are such critical re-assessments.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">What’s the Point?<o:p></o:p></span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://img.greatchristianbooks.com.au/D/byl-god-cosmos-christian-view-9780851518008.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://img.greatchristianbooks.com.au/D/byl-god-cosmos-christian-view-9780851518008.jpg" width="127" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Claims that “origin science” is “little better than an amusing intellectual parlour game” and that the “prime aim [of ‘operation science’ is] developing useful technology” (p. 214) are central to Byl’s book. However, this fragments a beautiful structure, described by (agnostic) physicist Ethan Siegel <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/03/the_most_astounding_fact_about.php">as follows</a>: </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">“Only if the fundamental laws of the Universe are the same everywhere and at all times can we learn what they are today, and </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">use</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> that knowledge to figure out what the Universe — and everything in it — was doing in the past, and what it will be doing in the future. In other words, it is this one fact, this </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">most astounding</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> fact, that allows us to do science, and to learn something meaningful, at all.” Siegel’s post is chock full of words like “astounding”, “remarkable”, “wondrous”. And the approach of “origin science” </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">vs.</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> “operation science” requires the utter denial of all this discovered awesomeness, which I, for one, am not prepared to do</span>, on account of Psalms like the 8<sup>th</sup>, 19<sup>th</sup>, 104<sup>th</sup>, and 148<sup>th</sup>. “The heavens declare the glory of God.”<br />
<br />
Byl’s writings have been very influential in our circles, with pastors and teachers recommending his book to young people. A recent editorial in <i>Clarion</i> (“When Science and Scripture Clash”, 17 February 2012, pp. 78-81) also demonstrates Prof. C. Van Dam’s continued allegiance to the origin-<i>vs.</i>-operation science notion. Many scientists in the Canadian Reformed community have grave difficulties with this approach, and I hope this post (together with the incisive <a href="http://goo.gl/IB1cc" target="_blank">review by Collins</a> referred to above) has shown its serious problems. While the results of modern science may be uncomfortable, it will not help to simplistically dismiss their claims as irrelevant on the basis of an indefensible distinction between “origin science” and “operation science”. Let us not lose sight of what we have learned about God’s awesome deeds of the past.<br />
<div><br />
</div></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And, back to the (fictional) story I began with: <i>Of course, I will look for my missing daughter! I’m not interested in proving her existence, but confident that God is good and faithful. And I have my responsibilities to attend to.</i></span><span style="font-family: Cambria,serif; font-style: italic;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>Arnold Sikkemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.com9Langley49.098755 -122.65459449.077961499999994 -122.69407600000001 49.1195485 -122.615112tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-85019732547548090462012-03-08T05:00:00.000-08:002013-05-22T09:49:34.750-07:00The Philosophical Foundations of Bavinck and Dooyeweerd<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKUYkYfMxIUZgKzLSG9Efvi9y4XcXud0Vs2yanossy7Ns02DMWgmigviYGyModZkNfkDPkjC4kt6k1v-3zt7bkiWAnRj3sj8g3jNgyphtz_pfKgFN93937BqvTIvk7b-UA4Br97oK17Nc/s1600/herman_bavinck.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKUYkYfMxIUZgKzLSG9Efvi9y4XcXud0Vs2yanossy7Ns02DMWgmigviYGyModZkNfkDPkjC4kt6k1v-3zt7bkiWAnRj3sj8g3jNgyphtz_pfKgFN93937BqvTIvk7b-UA4Br97oK17Nc/s320/herman_bavinck.png" width="204" /></a></div>
Herman Dooyeweerd (1894–1977) was a Dutch philosopher in the neo-Calvinist tradition. He acquired international fame as one of the founders of a new school of Christian philosophy. Ed Echeverria reviewed two books, one a <a href="http://www.prpbooks.com/inventory.html?target=indiv_title&id=2018">biography</a> of the theologian Herman Bavinck by Ron Gleason and one a sympathetic-critical <a href="http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P01409">study</a> of Dooyeweerd’s Christian philosophy of law, politics and society by Jonathan Chaplin. Chaplin’s book contains the clearest introduction to the thought of Dooyeweerd and Echeverria’s essay improves on that by offering the shortest introduction to Dooyeweerd and by comparing his thought to that of Bavinck.<br />
<br />
Here is <a href="http://www.marketsandmorality.com/index.php/mandm/article/view/48/45">a link</a> to Echeverria’s review essay in <i>Journal of Markets & Morality</i> v. 14, n. 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 463–483.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www3.undpress.nd.edu/covers/P01409.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www3.undpress.nd.edu/covers/P01409.png" width="212" /></a></div>
For those interested, subscription information to this journal is provided <a href="http://www.acton.org/pub/jmm-subscribe">here</a>.<br />
<br />
A subscription is necessary to access the two most recent issues online (there is an affordably priced electronic-only option for individuals), but the rest of <a href="http://www.acton.org/pub/journal-markets-morality">the journal</a>’s issues are freely available in their online archive.Jitse van der Meerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02564632094598243894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-7265659259597143692012-03-05T09:53:00.002-08:002012-03-05T10:19:13.954-08:00Wisdom & Wonder: Common Grace in Science & Art<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Abraham_Kuyper_-_Griffis.jpg/220px-Abraham_Kuyper_-_Griffis.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Abraham_Kuyper_-_Griffis.jpg/220px-Abraham_Kuyper_-_Griffis.jpg" width="150" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Abraham Kuyper</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It has frequently happened in the history of the church that Christians, fearful of the influence of a secular and hostile culture, closed themselves off from that culture and sought their strength in isolation and inwardness. That temptation is again strong in modern times, when secular forces are steadily increasing their control of the public square. In such circumstances believers are easily tempted to abandon their place and calling in society and, as often as not, in the universities as well. Although the trend has traditionally been associated especially with evangelicalism, today it threatens to affect also churches that in the past made a point of engaging the surrounding culture, attempting to serve also in this area as a salt and a light. Reformed churches, including our own, are not immune to the danger.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.clpress.com/sites/clpress.com/files/W&WCover.jpg?1317133331" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.clpress.com/sites/clpress.com/files/W&WCover.jpg?1317133331" /></a></div>
Reformed Christians have the benefit, however, of belonging to a tradition that stresses the believers’ duties with respect to the world and human society. Well-known among scholars who have guided them in this area is Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), the man who reminded his followers that “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence whereof Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not say: ‘Mine!’” One of the works in which Kuyper teaches us the need of an appropriate this-worldliness is his 3-volume study on common grace. That study is presently being translated, on behalf of the <a href="http://www.acton.org/research/kuyper-translation-project">Kuyper Translation Project</a>, by <a href="http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/about.html">Dr. Nelson Kloosterman</a>. The first volume is expected to appear later this year. Meanwhile a brief introduction to the study has already seen the light under the title <i>Wisdom & Wonder: Common Grace in Science & Art</i>, also translated by Dr. Kloosterman, and <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Wisdom-Wonder-Common-Grace-Science/dp/1937498905"> published</a> by the <a href="http://www.clpress.com/publication/wisdom-wonder-common-grace-science-art">Christian’s Library Press</a>. (Also of interest is Kloosterman’s new venture, <a href="http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/"><i>Worldview Resources International</i></a>.)<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/images_misc/ndk_informal_face.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.worldviewresourcesinternational.com/images_misc/ndk_informal_face.jpg" width="117" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nelson Kloosterman</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The booklet reminds us that God created man and woman in his image, appointed them as his representatives, and gave them the task of knowing God and of glorifying him in his works. While this applies, as Kuyper teaches elsewhere, to all aspects of creation and of human culture, in this work he reminds us specifically of the need to get involved in the important areas of science and the arts. We are happy to announce this booklet. May it, and the succeeding volumes when they appear, inspire God’s people to apply themselves fully and fearlessly to their cultural tasks, in accordance with God’s will.Frederika Oosterhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06340388418031783192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-73925852829005839022012-02-17T15:41:00.000-08:002012-02-17T15:53:12.856-08:00WTS conference on science and faithA couple of years ago, I <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2010/01/conference-reformed-theologians-and.html">alerted</a> our readers of what appeared to me to be a valuable conference.<br /><br />I am now repeating that alert, because <a href="http://www.wts.edu/">Westminster Theological Seminary</a> (Philadelphia) is now hosting (alongside the Discovery Institute) their <a href="http://www.discovery.org/e/2861">third annual Westminster Conference on Science and Faith</a>. That seminary is firmly in the Reformed tradition, and is to be commended for not shying away from dealing with matters that in our circles are routinely studiously ignored or at best treated superficially and dismissively.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scienceandgod.org/graphics/westminster-conference-2012.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 290px; height: 180px;" src="http://www.scienceandgod.org/graphics/westminster-conference-2012.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>This gathering affords university & seminary students, pastors, and elders the significant opportunity of a pivotal road trip. Let me encourage church members in southern Ontario to not let them miss out; instead, give them the weekend off (no preaching when they return), put some gas and restaurant money into their hands, pay their hotel and registration fees, and send them off with your blessing and prayers.<br /><br />Here are the opening lines of <a href="http://www.discovery.org/e/2861">the conference announcement</a>:<br /><br /><i>Does modern biology support or undercut human uniqueness? Are the discoveries of brain research compatible with personal responsibility? What does it really mean to be “created in the image of God?” And what are the social and ethical implications of our view of the human person?</i><br /><br />Given the list of speakers and topics involved, it’s not likely that attendees will be pressured to accept evolution, in case you are concerned about that. We would be glad to hear of your experiences upon your return.Arnold Sikkemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-31116573978193034872011-12-08T20:01:00.001-08:002011-12-08T20:25:08.084-08:00Evolution and the BibleIn connection with <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2011/10/church-and-modern-science.html">my recent post</a> “Church and Modern Science,” Pastor Rob Schouten complained (in a public discussion on Facebook) that <i>Reformed Academic</i> “gives no evidence of grappling with the extraordinary problems of the theory of evolution,” and expressed the wish that we would “spend some time analyzing the manifest weaknesses” of that theory. This is a fair request, and in what follows I will attempt to respond to it.<br />
<br />
I would like to begin by slightly reformulating the question. Rev. Schouten, if I understand him correctly, asks us especially to be diligent in exposing <i>scientific</i> weaknesses of evolutionary theories. Generally, however, we (and no doubt Rev. Schouten himself) look for these and bring them to the fore because of the <i>religious</i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://images.gnpcb.org/products/9781433524257.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://images.gnpcb.org/products/9781433524257.jpg" width="206" /></a></div>difficulties we as Bible-believing Christians have with evolution. Pinpointing scientific weaknesses will not, I am convinced, remove all these difficulties. Therefore, although not ignoring the existence of scientific problems, I will focus on the religious ones. The urgency of the topic was brought home to me once more by <a href="http://amzn.com/1433524252">a recent publication</a> by Reformed theologian C. John Collins (professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis), which he titled <i>Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were And Why You Should Care</i> (<a href="http://www.crossway.org/books/did-adam-and-eve-really-exist-tpb/">Crossway</a>, 2011). <br />
<br />
In this blog posting I will follow that book quite closely.<br />
<br />
<i>Scientific weaknesses: are they conclusive?</i><br />
<br />
But first a few remarks on possible scientific weaknesses of the theory of evolution. I can be brief here because, as it happens, I have earlier dealt with this issue. I did so in <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/10/teaching-evolution-at-our-schools-why.html">an essay</a> titled “Teaching Evolution at Our Schools – Why and How,” which was posted on this blog on 30 October 2009, and can be found under my name under “Collected Papers.” Therein I listed a number of questions that must be considered in connection with evolutionary theories (see especially section 5, “How we should teach evolution (II),” and section 6, “Let’s keep in mind the nature of science”).<br />
<br />
Since the information is available on the blog, I will not repeat my arguments, but I do want to point out, as I did in the paper, that the questions I raised are among the reasons why I personally have difficulties accepting the naturalistic, macro-evolutionary picture of development “from molecules to man.” (Other reasons are of a religious nature.) At the same time I made clear in my paper that the scientific evidence for evolution is very strong and that in all honesty we should admit this. In this connection I referred to <a href="http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html">the very pointed admission</a> of young-earth biochemist Todd Charles Wood (who rejects evolution not on scientific but on religious grounds) that denying the very significant scientific evidence simply won’t do.<br />
<br />
I realize that most of his fellow young-earth creationists will disagree with Wood’s estimate of the theory’s strength and will refer to the work of young-earth scientists, and perhaps even to that of “creation science.” I understand their concern. It points to the route I myself once followed. My intensive reading of both young-earth and old-earth creationists as well as that of evolutionary scientists, Christians and non-Christians (and also my recognition of the practical <i>applications</i> of scientific theories), convinced me that modern science, including evolutionary science, must be taken far more seriously than often happens in our circles, and that our habit of denying the evidence and replacing it with pseudo-scientific alternatives is not only wrong but also dangerous. The reasons I have given in previous posts. They include the evidence provided not just by biology but by the majority of the modern sciences, the urgent need to interact with our culture, the fact that our attitude can form a serious stumbling block for our own people, not least for ill-prepared students among us, and that it is bound to cause problems in our evangelistic efforts. The last-mentioned factor, I have suggested, is probably among the reasons why a number of outstanding orthodox theologians have publicly accepted one version or another of evolutionary creationism.<br />
<br />
<i>Denying the historicity of Adam and Eve</i><br />
<br />
Although other religious difficulties can be mentioned, the most serious challenge Christians have to deal with are scientific findings that are claimed by scientists to make it impossible any longer to believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve (and all that this implies for our understanding of Scripture). The denial of their historicity is not a novel development. Originally it was based on the study of fossils, which appeared to give evidence of the existence of pre-Adamites and of a much earlier appearance of the human species than the biblical record seems to allow. More recently, of course, the position has been greatly strengthened by the striking advances in modern genomics.<br />
<br />
These scientific findings, and especially the ones in genomics, have convinced even many Christians that belief in the existence of Adam and Eve can no longer be defended. Among them is well-known geneticist Francis S. Collins, one-time leader of the Human Genome Project, author of <a href="http://amzn.com/0743286391">the best-selling autobiography</a> <i>The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief</i> (Free Press, 2006), and one of the founders of the blog <a href="http://www.biologos.org/"><i>BioLogos</i></a>. The idea is being propagated even in the Reformed camp. There was much consternation a few years ago when two Calvin College theologians, at <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/">a meeting</a> of the <a href="http://www.asa3.org/">American Scientific Affiliation</a>, professed their adherence to the view held by Francis Collins. At that same meeting C. John Collins presented a paper, later <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Collins.pdf">published</a> under the title “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters,” wherein he outlined “the other side” of the issue. (For the relevant papers see <i>Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith</i>, v. 62, <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10dyn.html">n. 3, September 2010</a>.) Collins’ newly published book is an extension of the paper he gave at the ASA meeting. (Note: In the present blog posting, “Collins” refers to C. John Collins, not to Francis Collins.)<br />
<br />
<i>Biblical evidence</i><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.covenantseminary.edu/faculty/jack.collins/upload/4908c44f4c47e.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.covenantseminary.edu/faculty/jack.collins/upload/4908c44f4c47e.jpg" width="176" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr. C. John Collins<br />
Professor of Old Testament<br />
Covenant Seminary</td></tr>
</tbody></table>How does Collins deal with the challenge? He begins (in chapter 2) by describing the “shape of the biblical story,” noting that the Bible consists not of unconnected episodes dealing with topics like morality, spiritual guidance, theology, devotion, and so on (although these matters are indeed being taught), but that it takes the form of a coherent, overarching, worldview-shaping narrative. Genesis 1 forms the beginning of that redemptive-historical narrative and sets the stage for all that is to follow: Eden, the fall, the need for redemption, Christ’s position as the “second Adam,” his sacrifice, resurrection and ascension, the judgment to come, and the ultimate restoration of all things. The historicity of this narrative, which assures us that our beliefs are not the stuff of dreams but are based on reality, is of utmost importance, and Collins makes a point of affirming it, giving special attention to the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. These chapters, he writes, are historical in the sense “that the author wanted his audience to believe that the events recorded really happened” (p. 34). This does not mean that Genesis 1 and following chapters are written according to modern historiographical standards, or in precise chronological order, or in complete detail. Nor does it mean that no figurative language has been used. It does mean that Genesis 1 speaks of events that actually happened.<br />
<br />
The historicity of the first chapters of the Bible implies the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first humans. Although, as we will see, Collins is willing to go quite a distance in considering the conclusions of modern science, the historicity of Adam and Eve (or at least of “an” Adam and Eve) is for him nonnegotiable. The rest of the Bible requires it. As he points out, their actual existence as the ancestors of all humans – the fact that they were at the “headwaters” of human history – also accounts for the unity of the human race. The same historicity shows that the presence of sin in our world was not a natural “given” (which in fact would mean that God should be held responsible for it), but that it was the result of the disobedience of the first human couple, a disobedience that affects all their descendants. Only by accepting the story of a good creation which was marred by human disobedience, Collins will argue at greater length in a later chapter, are we able not only to understand the rest of the Bible but also make sense of the world in which we live.<br />
<br />
Before turning to the latter point, he gives (in chapter 3) biblical evidence for the historicity of the first humans, listing texts in both the Old and New Testament that refer, directly or indirectly, to creation and to the existence of Adam and Eve as humanity’s first parents through whom sin entered the world. Many of these references are familiar – especially those we find in the Gospels, the Pauline Letters, and Revelation – but it is good to be given what looks like a fairly inclusive list. It affirms what we already knew, namely that the historicity of Adam and Eve – and of the record of creation in its entirety – does inform the biblical message and that questioning it raises very serious problems.<br />
<br />
Here a difficult issue must be raised: Does such questioning necessarily imply a denial of the Bible’s authority as such, and must it therefore be qualified as unbelief? The issue is difficult because there are Christians who, while questioning the historicity of Adam and Eve, yet appear to believe with all their heart in the reality of sin and the need for salvation in Christ. Among those who have struggled with this question is Tim Keller, founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, who accepts a version of evolutionary creationism but, like Collins, insists on the historicity of Adam and Eve. He answers as follows: “When you refuse to take a Biblical author [like Paul] literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the Biblical authority.... That doesn’t mean you can’t have a strong, vital faith yourself, but I believe such a move can be bad for the church as a whole, and it certainly can lead to confusion on the part of laypeople.” Collins, more briefly, describes any such questioning as an alternative that is “less satisfactory, and possibly even disastrous” (p. 133).<br />
<br />
<i>Common human experience</i><br />
<br />
In the introduction to his book Collins announced as one of his goals “to argue that the traditional position on Adam and Eve, or some variation of it, does the best job of accounting not only for the Biblical materials but also for our everyday experience as human beings....” (p. 13). And therefore, he added, possible difficulties we encounter may mean that we should try making some adjustments to the traditional view, rather than discarding it altogether. Showing the link between the biblical narrative and everyday human experience is the topic of Chapter 4, which I think contains some of the most helpful material in the book, especially by arguing that science does not necessarily have the last word in determining what is true and real.<br />
<br />
Collins begins with the biblical teaching that God made humankind in his image. That image can be interpreted in three ways, namely as <i>resemblance</i> (humans resemble God in some ways, such as the possession of intelligence, the ability to communicate by means of language, a sense of morality, a sense of beauty, and so on), as <i>representation</i> (Adam and Eve were appointed God’s vice-regents and given dominion), and as <i>relational</i> (humans were made to live in community with God and with their fellows). Collins admits the validity of all three explanations but focuses on the resemblance aspect, pointing out that the specific characteristics and capacities associated with the divine image are unique to humans and also that they are universal. Unless they can be proven to be the result of natural selection alone – a possibility which Collins says even some evolutionists question – the image serves as an argument for both humankind’s special creation and for the unity of the human race, a unity that various scientists are questioning. (Collins does believe, I should add, that scientific evidence points to an early date for the creation of Adam and Eve – he suggests a date before 40,000 B.C. – p. 117).<br />
<br />
For a scientific theory to be acceptable, Collins writes, it must account “for the whole range of evidence,” and therefore also for the whole range of human experience, including the deep-seated desires, fears, and intuitions that all humans, both Christians and non-Christians, share. For example, there is, and there always has been, also in ancient pagan societies, a craving for human community governed by love and justice, just as there has always been a yearning for God, for redemption, forgiveness, moral transformation, for immortality and a blessed afterlife. These human cravings and experiences point to a dissonance between life as we experience it and as we feel it should be, and they help explain the profound sense of loss which is felt by all humans, and to which poets throughout the ages have borne witness. The universality of these experiences and longings, Collins writes, was traditionally held as stemming from a common origin. Its only satisfactory explanation is found in the story of Genesis 1 to 3.<br />
<br />
In short, Collins reminds us here that there are “non-scientific,” historical, experiential, and even common sense reasons to believe in the uniqueness of humanity, its special creation, its unity, and also in the biblical message of its fall. While reading the chapter I thought that reference could also be made to Art. 5 of the Belgic Confession, which states that we believe in the divine origin of the books of the Bible first and foremost “<i>because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they contain the evidence of this in themselves; for even the blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled.</i>” This type of argument is applicable when we are resisting other assaults upon the faith, such as the denial of God’s very existence. I was reminded of C.S. Lewis’s fine essay “On Obstinacy in Belief,” wherein he speaks of knowledge of God “by acquaintance”: God is willing to make himself known to his people, also through the experiences of their lives as believers, as “the increasingly <i>knowable</i> Lord” (emphasis added).<br />
<br />
<i>Scientific aspects</i><br />
<br />
Finally, in chapter 5, Collins gives some attention to the relevant science. I have to admit that I did not find this the clearest part of the book and I hope that I present his arguments fairly. In any case, he questions the widely accepted scientific claim that DNA evidence necessarily points to a population of several thousand from which humanity descended. He adds, however, that even if there should have been more than two ancestors, we still don’t “<i>necessarily</i> have to ditch all traditional views of Adam and Eve” (p. 120). One possibility is that Adam was the chieftain of a tribe, serving as its “federal” head and representative, and that therefore his trespass affected all those connected with him. While not, as far as I can tell, openly challenging the widely accepted idea of a transition from pre-Adamite hominid to human, Collins makes a point of rejecting the idea that such a transition could have taken place by natural means. If it indeed happened, then a special divine “refurbishing” of the pre-existing hominid must have taken place. That is, the image of God must have been bestowed on him. Humans are a special creation and, alone among all creatures, are made in God’s image, an image that was bestowed on them at creation.<br />
<br />
<i>What are we to do?</i><br />
<br />
I expect that many among us will question Collins’ suggestions on a number of these points, insisting that he goes “way too far” in his willingness to consider scientific theories. It is possible that he does. He is, however, not alone among believers to take scientific findings seriously: there are other Christian thinkers who have drawn similar conclusions. Among them are apologist C.S. Lewis, Old Testament scholar Derek Kidner, and theologian John Stott. Collins in fact discusses the position of these men. Another well-known theologian who could have been mentioned in this connection is Tim Keller, who a few years ago published a paper explaining his position (similar, on various points, to that of Collins, Lewis, Kidner, and Stott) in considerable detail. That paper, which he titled “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople” can be found on this blog under Collected Papers.<br />
<br />
I expect that some readers will also ask why we even pay attention to a book whose author, although affirming the historicity of the first chapters of the Bible, is nevertheless willing to consider the feasibility of scientific theories that are in conflict with the way in which we have traditionally interpreted these chapters. In answering this question I repeat what I have argued before, which is that the only responsible way of dealing with the religious difficulties posed by modern science is to face these difficulties squarely, study the issues carefully and honestly, and (not in the last place) acquaint ourselves with the way in which orthodox, well-informed Christian thinkers – scientists, theologians, and others – are attempting to meet them. For this, surely, is one of the matters that must be tackled “together with all the saints.” Ignoring the problems, while understandable, will not resolve them. Nor is it (if I take our tradition as at all normative) the course we ought to follow as Christians. Where would we be today if our ancestors had simply ignored/denied scientific challenges and forced us to live with unnecessary disconnects between the Bible and a universally accepted scientific conclusion, such as, for example, the heliocentric theory?<br />
<br />
By saying this I am not attempting to diminish the difficulties we are facing today. They are daunting. Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck wrote a century ago that not even “a generation or an age” may be able to resolve all the questions that arise in connection with modern learning; it is God who in the course of history must bring light into the darkness. We may have no choice but to live for now with a disconnect – as many a faithful Christian is in fact doing. (In this vein, it may be that some “evolutionary creationists” are too confident about their resolution of the problems, and Todd Wood’s <a href="http://www.colossianforum.org/2011/11/09/article-what-i-would-like-to-hear-an-evolutionary-creationist-say/">request</a> of them to say “I don’t know” is worth affirming.) But thanks to God and the work of his Spirit, there is no reason for despair. As Art. 5 of the Belgic Confession teaches, and as Collins reminded us, our confidence in the truth of Scripture and of all it reveals does not depend on our ability to reconcile modern science with the Bible. I believe that if we keep this in mind we can be far less fearful when continuing to deal (as indeed we must) with the challenges raised by modern science.Frederika Oosterhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06340388418031783192noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-72237243800535704862011-10-22T09:02:00.000-07:002011-10-22T14:20:59.420-07:00Church and Modern ScienceThis post is inspired by a recently published <a href="http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church">report</a> of the Barna Research Group that contains some alarming news about the number of young Christians who leave their churches. The research for the report, which is titled “Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church,” appears to have focused primarily on North American evangelical churches and groups, but the findings have relevance for other churches, including our own. <br />
<br />
This is not to say that we are in the same position as the churches which the Barna Group investigated. According to the Barna Report, “nearly three out of every five young Christians (59%) disconnect either permanently or for an extended period of time from church life after age 15.” Our federation does not keep records of the number of people who leave and therefore, unfortunately, I cannot back up my conclusion with statistics, but it seems very unlikely to me that the number of young people leaving the CanRC comes even close to that mentioned by the Barna Group. Nor do I see evidence of the same pervasive criticism of our church by its younger members that seem to plague the churches on which the Barna Group focuses. Yes, some young adults leave – often, I believe, to join another church. But as I discussed in <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2011/07/are-we-too-isolationist.html">an earlier post</a> on this blog (“Are We Too Isolationist?”) many others are actively involved in the church and its projects. Instead of a decrease in church- and evangelistic activity by our younger members, there has, in the last few decades, been a very significant increase.<br />
<br />
<i>The need for cultural involvement</i><br />
<br />
Even so, we are not immune to the negative developments the Barna Group reports. Rather than assuming that it has “arrived,” a Reformed church must always be reforming. That means, among other things, that as church community we are to be fully aware of the challenges of an evolving and ever-changing culture and of our own position within that culture. Such awareness is necessary for the sake of our culture itself. In order to fulfill its task with respect to the world – that is, in order to be a salt and light – the church must know its society, interact with it, be able to deal with the questions it raises and, not in the last place, be acquainted with its needs. The church’s awareness of the surrounding culture is also necessary for the sake of the church members, not least the younger ones. Their level of education and their intense use of modern means of communication ensure that, far more than any generation before them, they are constantly involved in the world around them and exposed to the spiritual challenges it poses. In order to understand and help those in their charge, pastors, teachers, and other leaders must be sure to know the nature and the challenges of today’s culture in its widest sense. <br />
<br />
In that respect there is room for self-examination. As the Barna Report again makes clear, by demonizing facets of our culture without further ado – that is, without proper knowledge and honest evaluation – we alienate those “in the know.” Our blog, as its readers know, has long been concerned with one such case of demonizing in our own circles, namely our church community’s negative view and sometimes actual maligning of modern science. In what follows I will focus on that issue. I am doing this with reference to Reason #3 of the Barna Report (“Churches come across as antagonistic to science”). Because to a large extent the prevailing attitude among us is inspired by the desire to protect Christians from spiritual dangers, I will give some attention also to Reason #1 (“Churches seem overprotective”). I will not, however, go into the various aspects of the church’s perceived over-protectiveness that the Report mentions. Perhaps we can return to those on another occasion, or perhaps a reader wants to comment on them. Indeed, on any of the items in the Report, and on the present essay, reader-input is most welcome. <br />
<br />
<i>Scripture and science</i><br />
<br />
Our main concern for now is with the relationship between faith and modern science. Here follows the Barna Report’s summary of the complaints in this area:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that </i><i>“</i><i>Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.</i></blockquote>
At least in this respect the situation in evangelical churches is quite similar to that in the CanRC. The nature of the conflicts among us is well known. On the one hand there are the proponents of what is called Young-Earth Creationism (YEC), and on the other those who believe science clearly indicates that the earth is much older than a literal reading of Genesis 1 suggests. The latter position, incidentally, was until quite recently considered lawful in Reformed circles but is now widely censored, even considered heretical. Of course, the disagreements do not stop here. In addition to the old-earthers, there are Reformed Christians, scientists and others, who conclude that the evidence for evolution is significant and accept to varying degrees one or other version of what is often called theistic evolution. They realize the problems involved in such a position but believe they cannot deny the evidence and pray that one day God will lighten their and our darkness in this respect. <br />
<br />
Christian scientists are of course not the only Christians to consider the possibility of a divinely guided process of evolution. Their position is shared by an increasing number of orthodox theologians and apologists who adopt it not just for scientific, but also, and especially, for evangelistic and pastoral reasons. Names that come to mind are those of Tim Keller, John Stott, Bruce Waltke, and N.T. Wright. Among the theologians who have publicly explained their position on the issue is Tim Keller, whose “apologia” has been announced and <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2010/03/tim-keller-on-evolution-and-bible.html">posted</a> on our blog (“Tim Keller on Evolution and the Bible”). Keller’s position is tentative; he admits the difficulties evolution poses for Bible-believing Christians and insists that under all circumstances the Bible, properly interpreted, must have the last word. Meanwhile he looks for possibilities of reconciling Scripture and modern science, and in the introduction to his paper he shows the necessity of such a reconciliation for the sake both of believing Christians and of unbelievers we seek to draw to the church. To quote from his introduction:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>Many believers…see the medical and technological advances achieved through science and are grateful for them. They have a very positive view of science. How then can they reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their theological beliefs? Seekers and inquirers about Christianity can be even more perplexed. They may be drawn to many things about the Christian faith, but, they say, ‘I don’t see how I can believe the Bible if that means I have to reject science.’</i></blockquote>
Keller’s arguments warrant our attention. We are usually told that upholding the YEC position is necessary to protect our youth. Letting go of a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1, we are warned, means establishing a slippery slope: all of Scripture may then be interpreted symbolically. That risk indeed exists, especially if no theological help is forthcoming for those who struggle with the problem (and if the work of Christians who do try to find an answer is being censored, as happens far too often among us). On the other hand, we hardly ever hear of the opposite danger, as described by Tim Keller and as noted in the Barna Report. Also worthy of notice is the negative implication our present position has for evangelism. This is true not only when we are bringing the gospel to intellectuals. I have met the same objection when involved in evangelism in a downtown area where the level of education is very low. It does not surprise me that evangelists and apologists are in the forefront of those who work at bridging the perceived chasm between science and Scripture.<br />
<br />
Of course, the challenges of modern science must not be underestimated. They come not only from biology (especially genetics), but also from other areas such as paleontology, geology, astronomy, and nuclear physics. We should not forget, however, that orthodox Christians have faced serious conflicts between Scripture and science before and have, to the best of their ability, resolved them. As a result, Christian scientists in the past could pursue their vocation with their church’s blessing. It is time for us to do what we can to follow that example. This means that with Augustine, Calvin, and their numberless followers we stop rejecting science and prayerfully support Christian scientists who attempt to do their work as part of the cultural mandate, and at the same time try to resolve the problems to which we referred. And of course, we should learn from the work of other Christian scholars involved in this area, such as theologians, philosophers, and apologists – including those belonging to other churches. After all, we do not have to resolve these difficulties on our own; we may and should do it “together with all the saints.” Reconciling faith and science is not an easy job, but if other Christians are attempting it, and if our ancestors were willing to tackle it, so should we. If we don’t, I fear that we will succumb to sectarianism and lose all possibilities of properly interacting with our culture. <br />
<br />
<i>Getting to know modern science</i><br />
<br />
In brief, I suggest that instead of maligning science we learn to see it, as our Reformed ancestors did, as a gift of God and give thanks for it. It is true that God’s gifts can be and often are abused, and our attitude toward science (and especially to the ideologies to which it has given rise) must always be a critical one. But we should be sure that we know what we are criticizing, and why we do it, which means that we must do our utmost to know what modern science is really about. <br />
<br />
How are we to effect a change in our attitude toward science? A first step for Reformed Christians may well be to consult the past and get acquainted with the history of both Young-Earth Creationism and of the much older Christian (and Reformed) tradition on the relation between science and Scripture. In the latter tradition, as I already mentioned, science was taken seriously. Realizing that many of its findings could not be gainsaid, the majority of orthodox theologians and other scholars accepted these findings and helped believers to deal with them. A case in point is the theory of a non-central and moving earth in the 16<sup>th</sup> and 17<sup>th</sup> centuries, and the apparent problems connected with geological and other evidence of an ancient earth some 200 or 300 years later. <br />
<br />
Such, then, was the attitude to science in the Reformed past. It was only later that young-earth creationism with its rejection of modern science appeared on the scene, presented itself as providing the only acceptable biblical approach to science, and was accepted as true not just in adventist and other fundamentalist churches (although there first of all) but even in some Reformed circles. Some years ago I wrote about these developments in <a href="http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/4/9/2397423/Oosterhoff%202009%20Young%20Earth%20Creationism%20A%20History.pdf">a paper</a> titled “Young-Earth Creationism: A History.” The story is instructive and I suggest you read it. The paper was introduced via <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2009/06/young-earth-creationism-history.html">this blog posting</a>, and you can find it on our blog under our <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/p/collected-papers.html">“Collected Papers”</a>.<br />
<br />
A second step is to get acquainted with the work not just of Young-Earth Creationists, but also of other scientists – especially Christian ones, including theistic evolutionists. <i>Please note: I recommend this not because I endorse the point of view of every possible Christian scientist, which I don’t, but because it may help to ensure a sorely needed informed discussion on the matter in question.</i> Young-Earth Creationism and even “creation science” are widely proclaimed in our church media, and occasionally even from our pulpits, as the one and only orthodox position, while a serious discussion on their background and validity is lacking. Opposite opinions are routinely censored, and the “official” position is in fact established by what amounts to majority vote. One of the saddest incidents in this area happened when a few years ago non-YEC positions that had been discussed on an <i>academic</i> blog run by church members were officially attacked in our church magazine, and when that magazine refused to publish a response by the “accused,” while continuing to open its pages to further attacks on them. Such things ought not to happen among us, and I believe they can be avoided if spiritual leaders and church members at large are willing to study the issue from both sides. This includes, as I suggested, acquainting themselves with the arguments of Christian non-YEC scholars. A good number of them have described their work in a way that is accessible to the lay reader. I am thinking of authors like Francis Collins (<i>The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence of Belief</i>), Owen Gingerich (<i>God’s Universe</i>), and Davis A. Young (<i>Christianity and the Age of the Earth</i>), to mention only a few. <br />
<br />
And then there are of course the blogs. Many in our churches are well acquainted with Young-Earth Creationist Ken Ham’s <i>Answers in Genesis</i> (at least one church even <a href="http://www.bethelchurch.ca/resources.html">promotes it publicly</a>). It should indeed be consulted, but so should blogs by Christians that present a non-YEC position. The blog of an OPC church member and geologist, <a href="http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/"><i>Questioning Answers in Genesis</i></a>, and <a href="http://www.biologos.org/"><i>Biologos</i></a> are examples, as is our blog, <i>Reformed Academic</i>. Not in the last place, we should give attention to explanations given by the contemporary pastors and evangelists who consider the possibility of theistic evolution. We may well disagree with them, but rather than rejecting their work out of hand, we should listen to their arguments, be aware of the reasons they give for their choice, realize the difficulties they are contending with, and (not in the last place!) join them in thinking about possible solutions. We need each other’s help. And within our church community we should be allowed, openly and publicly, to extend that help. <br />
<br />
To conclude: my request is for a less fearful, more honest, and more open approach to the issue in question, and therefore for the intellectual freedom that we enjoyed in the past. This would mean that young-earth creationism is tolerated and discussed, but that the public discussion of other views is also tolerated – and indeed facilitated. The present situation smacks of censorship and entails dangers that we cannot afford to ignore any longer. It tends to sectarianism, alienates many of our students, creates serious difficulties for our scientists and for others who cannot accept the established Creationist view, makes it hard for us to interact with our culture, separates us from much of both Christian and secular scholarship, and can be a serious stumbling block in our evangelistic efforts. If the Barna Report helps convince our church community of the need to rethink its position and policies in the area of science, then it has served us well.Frederika Oosterhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06340388418031783192noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-15627752272439953892011-10-01T07:38:00.000-07:002011-10-01T07:48:31.575-07:00Scientists and their Place in the Church<a href="http://www.culture-making.com/images/andycrouch.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 156px; height: 184px;" src="http://www.culture-making.com/images/andycrouch.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><a href="http://www.culture-making.com/">Andy Crouch</a> has been mentioned on this blog a couple of times in the past year, in the context of <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2011/02/calvinism-and-literature-by-leland.html">literature</a> and <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2011/02/arts-and-reformed-tradition-by-william.html">the arts</a>. Today we commend to you <a href="http://ministrytheorem.calvinseminary.edu/essays/wiwmpk/WIWMPK-Crouch.pdf">this excellent piece</a> entitled “What I Wish My Pastor Knew About…The Life of a Scientist”. I have written briefly about some aspects of this a decade ago, in <a href="http://www.csc.twu.ca/sikkema/ScienceACulturalActivity.pdf">a piece</a> entitled “Science: A Cultural Activity”, but this new article represents a much more thorough and insightful presentation on the life of a scientist, and how congregations and pastors can positively interact with their scientist members.<br /><br />After discussing the delight & wonder, intellectual humility, frustration, collaboration, competition, risk, isolation, and specialization which characterize the life of a scientist, Crouch addresses the topic of ministering to scientists. A key sentence in his conclusion is: “If there is one thing that Christians ought to insist on when we approach questions of science and religion, it seems to me that it is the primacy of persons—the persons who practice science, and the persons who are affected by its practice.” We welcome your engagement with this inside look into the life of a scientist.Arnold Sikkemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-90396377305078087592011-09-01T14:50:00.000-07:002011-09-01T15:29:35.542-07:00What Are We To Do With N.T. Wright?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.theopedia.com/images/6/6d/N.T._Wright.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 185px; height: 201px;" src="http://www.theopedia.com/images/6/6d/N.T._Wright.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>The work of N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham and one of the world’s leading New Testament scholars, is the object of heated controversy among Reformed and evangelical theologians. This controversy might not have aroused the interest of most lay people, since much of it revolves around theological issues that would normally draw the attention mainly or exclusively of specialists. But as it happens, Wright is also the widely-read author of more popular religious works. These books, ranging from pastoral writings to apologetics and from ethics to doctrines of justification and salvation, have made him a leading defender of the faith for many non-theologians, including a good number of Reformed ones. His popular writings have, in fact, given him a status approaching that of another leading Anglican author and apologist, namely C.S. Lewis.
<br />
<br />I too have found Wright’s books enlightening and have written positive reviews of a number of them (most <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2010/11/nt-wright-on-why-christian-character.html">recently</a> of his <i>After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters</i>). In view of the reservations about his theology, however, I think the time has come to address the question whether or not he is indeed a trustworthy guide. Some among us do not think so – every so often we read or hear of pastoral warnings that Reformed folk would do better to ignore Wright and go to Reformed guides for answers to their questions. Are these warnings justified? Or, assuming that there are indeed problems with parts of Wright’s theology, are there also aspects that deserve our positive attention? This, I may as well admit at the outset, is my conclusion, which I hope to substantiate in what follows.
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://images.gnpcb.org/products/9781581349641.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 149px; height: 229px;" src="http://images.gnpcb.org/products/9781581349641.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>For this essay I have relied on two recent publications on Wright’s views. One is a book-length critique of his work by well-known Reformed-Baptist author John Piper, a man who has long interacted with Wright’s ideas, is highly critical of several of them, but attempts to evaluate them fairly. The book in question is <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Future-Justification-Response-N-Wright/dp/1581349645"><i>The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright</i></a> (Crossway, 2007) [freely available <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bfj/books_bfj.pdf">online</a>]. The second is Wright’s answer to Piper and other critics, titled <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/JUSTIFICATION-GODS-PLAN-PAULS-VISION/dp/0830838635"><i>Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision</i></a> (IVP Academic, 2009). The two books of course contain far more information than I am able to do justice to in a brief survey. I will be able to mention only some of the points in the debate. Nevertheless, I hope that my remarks will help us at leas<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ivpress.com/img/book/218h/3863.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 147px; height: 218px;" src="http://www.ivpress.com/img/book/218h/3863.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>t to begin coping with the question I raised in the title of this article. Reactions are therefore invited – also from those who have studied Wright’s work in more detail and are able to add to my remarks and where necessary correct them.
<br />
<br /><i>The New Perspective</i>
<br />
<br />Wright is a scholar of the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP). The New Perspective is not easy to define, both on account of its complexity and because there are important differences among NPP adherents. A common element, however, is that all find fault with Luther’s understanding of the nature of Paul’s controversy with the Jews. Luther’s main error, they argue, was that in attempting to explain Paul he ignored the historical context of Paul’s letters and believed that he could equate the issues at stake in the first century with those he himself had to deal with 1500 years later. Luther’s burning question, like that of many people in the late Middle Ages, was how to find a merciful God and so assure his personal salvation. Roman Catholicism at the time placed a heavy emphasis on the role of works (think of the scandal of the indulgences), rather than on the all-sufficiency of divine grace. Unable to find peace by doing the prescribed works, Luther at last found the answer to his question in the gospel of justification by faith (Romans 1:17). Lutheranism, as well as other branches of the Reformation, thereupon began to see Paul’s issue with the Judaists of his day, and also with Jewish Christian who insisted that pagan converts must become Jews (see Paul’s letter to the Galatians), as similar to the Reformers’ struggle against Roman Catholic semi-Pelagianism. First-century Judaism, in short, became the mirror image of the late-medieval church and Paul was fighting the same battle in his days as the Reformers did in theirs.
<br />
<br />It is this interpretation that Wright and other NPP scholars reject. They refer to newly discovered documents of the period and argue that first-century Judaism must be explained within its own context, which, the documents show, was very different from that of Reformation Europe. Their conclusion is that in the first-century context “works of the law” had little to do with Reformation ideas of works-righteousness. The Jews Paul was dealing with knew that membership in the covenant was not because of merit but because of God’s grace, and obedience to the laws of the covenant (Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, dietary laws, separation from Gentiles, and so on) was again not seen as meritorious, but as the prescribed means to maintain one’s status within the covenant. These “works of the law” functioned at the same time as the means that kept Jews and Gentiles separate. Paul, on the other hand, celebrates the coming together of Jews and Gentiles which, as he writes in Ephesians 3:1-7, is “the very heart of the mystery of the Messiah, the secret which had not been revealed before but now is on public display” (Wright, 173). (The most important text for the NPP, I should mention here, is Romans 3:28: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too.”)
<br />
<br /><i>Wright’s covenant theology</i>
<br />
<br />According to this new perspective, then, the error of the first-century Jews with which Paul struggled was not their works-righteousness as the Reformers defined the term. It was Judaism’s ethnocentrism and exclusivism, its forgetting that God’s covenant with Abraham was altogether inclusive; that in Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Wright believes that Christians often have held a similar limited view; that like the Jews they have forgotten (or underemphasized) the cosmic and missional nature of the Abrahamic covenant.
<br />
<br />All this brings him to a matter he has written about in greater detail in his work <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Surprised-Hope-Rethinking-Resurrection-Mission/dp/031032470X"><i>Surprised by Hope</i></a> (HarperOne, 2008), which deals with the nature and scope of salvation. Many believers, he says, see salvation as “going to heaven when you die.” That answer, however, is individualistic and therefore inadequate. It suggests a spiritual geocentrism: the belief that the Sun revolves around us instead of the other way around. In the Bible salvation is not God’s rescue of individuals <i>from</i> the world but the rescue of the world itself, the cosmos in its entirety. Christ’s blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins, but also for bringing in the Gentiles (Wright, 171). Not only the individual, but “the whole creation is to be liberated from its slavery to decay (Romans 8:21)” (Wright, 10). The covenant, Wright says, is to be explained in these terms, and the doctrine of justification must be rooted in the <i>single</i> biblical narrative (101). One of Wright’s major themes is: “It is central to Paul, but almost entirely ignored in perspectives old, new, and otherwise, that <i>God had a single plan all along through which he intended to rescue the world and the human race, and that this single plan was centred upon the call of Israel, a call which Paul saw coming to fruition in Israel’s representative, the Messiah</i>” (Wright, 35; italics in the original).
<br />
<br />The acknowledgement that the Messiah fulfilled Israel’s call as its <i>representative</i> plays a role in Wright’s explanation of Romans 9-11. It also gives further substance to his warning that we must not de-Judaize Paul and his message (Wright, 195). As Jesus himself said to the Samaritan woman, “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). Wright’s reminder that there is a <i>history</i> of salvation is reminiscent of what Reformed people have come to know as the redemptive-historical approach. Like his emphasis on the covenant, the reminder should therefore resonate with Reformed believers.
<br />
<br /><i>What about personal salvation?</i>
<br />
<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.theopedia.com/images/a/ad/Johnpiper.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 169px; height: 212px;" src="http://www.theopedia.com/images/a/ad/Johnpiper.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Although Piper rejects much of Wright’s version of the NPP, he does have praise for some of Wright’s contributions and is especially grateful for “the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham” (Piper, 15f.). He recognizes that this insight “accounts for some of [Wright’s] reactions to the individualism and pietism that mark some preaching of the gospel,” and agrees that “there simply aren’t enough preachers who show the gospel to be what it is, the magnificent announcement of the Lordship of Jesus, not only over my personal problems, but over all of history and all the nations and all the environment.” The preaching of the gospel must indeed be rescued from “myopic, individualistic limitations” (Piper, 81). All this is close to Wright’s implicit questioning of “a non-historical soteriology the long and the short of which is ‘my relationship with God’ rather than ‘what God is going to do to sort out the world and his people’” (Wright, 61).
<br />
<br />At the same time, however, Piper fears that Wright’s strong emphasis on the covenant’s and the gospel’s global reach threatens to place other biblical teachings in jeopardy. He is concerned, for example, about Wright’s view that the gospel, being the proclamation of Christ’s lordship, is not to be equated with the message about how we are to get saved (Piper, 18). But isn’t this what the gospel is about as well? The question “How am I to be saved” is a legitimate and indeed an urgent one which, Piper rightly argues, needs to be answered more clearly than Wright does. “The kind of gospel preaching that will flow from Wright’s spring will probably have global scope to it,” Piper comments, “but will not deal personally with the human heart of sin with clear declarations of <i>how</i> Christ dealt with sin and <i>how</i> the fearful heart can find rest in the gospel of grace….” (Piper, 101). Piper admits that Wright does not ignore the relevance of the gospel for the individual life of faith and piety and the individual’s search for salvation, but fears that all this does not get the attention in Wright’s system that it receives in traditional protestant theology and in the gospel itself. “What puzzles me,” he writes elsewhere, “is that Wright seems to be able to speak of the gospel without explicitly showing what makes it good news for <i>me</i>” (Piper, 45, note 17).
<br />
<br /><i>Imputation</i>
<br />
<br />There are other instances where Piper criticizes what he sees as one-sidedness or even errors in Wright’s presentation. Among them are Wright’s definition of “the righteousness of God” as God’s covenant faithfulness (Piper says it is that, but also much more), Wright’s statement that justification denotes a status, namely that of being acquitted and forgiven, rather than moral transformation, and Wright’s questioning of the doctrine regarding the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us. This doctrine, based on such Bible texts as 2 Corinthians 5:21 (“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”), is often referred to as the “marvelous exchange” (Luther’s term), whereby Christ took our sins upon himself so that we might receive his righteousness. The doctrine of imputation has an important place in traditional Reformed teachings on justification: we confess it explicitly in Art. 22 of the Belgic Confession and Answer 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Wright questions it on exegetical and other grounds and argues that we are justified not because of imputation but because, having died and been raised with him, we are “in Christ.” This means that we are “summed up in him,” so that what is true of him is true of us (Wright, 104 and <i>passim</i>). He concludes, “To know that one has died and been raised is far, far more pastorally significant than to know that one has, vicariously, fulfilled the Torah” (Wright, 233). I think that he is right here, but isn’t there also biblical evidence for the doctrine of imputation? Why should we not continue to accept both?
<br />
<br /><i>Faith and works</i>
<br />
<br />More could be said on this matter, but I must turn to what Piper and other critics consider as perhaps Wright’s most striking aberration, namely his remarks about the role of works in judgment and salvation. Most of these occur in chapter 7 of his book, where he deals with the Letter to the Romans. Having come to Romans 2, he quotes the words, “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life….” (vv. 6, 7). He concludes that according to Paul at the judgment to come “the criterion will be, in some sense, ‘works,’ ‘deeds’ or even ‘works of the law.’” He admits that such a conclusion “has naturally been anathema to those who have been taught that…since justification is by faith, there simply cannot be a ‘final judgment according to works’” (Wright, 184). The fact remains, however, that according to Romans 2 God will indeed repay according to works, and this same message occurs elsewhere. The Bible even says that the believer’s good deeds can please the Lord: “Well done, good and faithful servant!” (Wright, 185-7).
<br />
<br />Does this mean that Paul teaches legalism, Pelagianism, or synergism (the doctrine that we cooperate with God, each doing his part)? Wright answers this question in the negative and points to the work of Christ’s Spirit in the believers’ lives; it is the Spirit alone who enables them to obey, by faith. Works-righteousness is out of the question. But the Spirit’s work is effective. Humans become “genuinely free, when the Spirit is at work within them so that they choose to act…in ways which reflect God’s image, which give him pleasure, which bring glory to his name, which do what the law had in mind all along…. The danger with a doctrine which says, ‘You can’t do anything and you mustn’t try’ is that it ends up with the servant who, knowing his master to be strict, hid his money in the ground” (Wright, 192f.).
<br />
<br />Piper gives much attention to the issue. He agrees with Wright that the life we now live is not irrelevant at the final judgment. To teach otherwise is “unPauline, unpastoral and ultimately dishonouring to God himself” (Piper, 116). But he objects to Wright’s occasional statement that we are justified “on the basis” of our works,” rather than “according to our works” (although he admits that Wright speaks also in more traditional terms of our works as being evidence of the authenticity of our faith) (Piper, 118f.). Nevertheless, Piper’s great concern is that Wright’s teachings may detract from the gospel’s message of justification apart from works. He points out that the rewards that are promised in the Bible do not contribute to a person’s final justification, but are for those who <i>are</i> justified (Piper, 167). In accordance with clear biblical teaching, the authentic Christian faith “looks away from all self-wrought <i>or Spirit-wrought</i> obedience in us to the blood and obedience of Jesus….” (Piper, 149, italics in the original).
<br />
<br /><i>Take and read</i>
<br />
<br />Wright remarks that in situations of controversy and turbulence people are likely to overstate the point they are trying to make. He refers especially to the protestant Reformation but, as at one point he admits, the same applies to NPP scholars and himself (Wright, pp. 46, 196). Piper has done us a service by pointing to a number of these over-statements and by attempting to correct what he sees as actual errors in Wright’s system. By doing so, and by inviting Wright’s response, he has allowed us to hear both sides of the controversy.
<br />
<br />I have learned from Piper and recommend his book. He is right, for example, when he questions Wright’s too rosy picture of first-century Judaism, pointing out, among other things, that ethnocentrism implies reliance on oneself and is therefore indistinguishable from works-righteousness (Piper, 155-8). Also noteworthy are his pleas that the spiritual needs of the “ordinary folk,” the person in the pew, not be ignored, and his defence of the gospel of justification by faith, apart from works. We must remember, however, that Wright does not deny this gospel. Salvation according to him also is by faith alone. At the same time I am convinced that Wright is also right in drawing attention to the Bible’s strong emphasis on the importance of “works.” This truth must indeed not be ignored, and the question arises: Do we, together with Wright, have to consider the possibility that Reformation theology, rightly anxious to safeguard the gospel of justification by faith, has wrongly underemphasized this aspect? Wright reminds us of Jesus’ own words that not the smallest part of the law has been abrogated by his coming. In a time when the temptation of “cheap grace” is as strong as it has ever been, it is good to be reminded of this truth. As various Reformed scholars have argued (including Anthony Hoeksema and Richard Gaffin), mentioning of a final judgment according to works simply reinforces the notion found elsewhere in Scripture that faith must necessarily issue in works and that, though we are not saved by works, we are not saved without them either. And finally, there is of course Wright’s much-needed reminder of the historical and global sweep of the covenant and of its implications for mission. On all these points we can learn from him.
<br />
<br />In conclusion: Yes, Wright must be read critically, and John Piper is doing us a favour not just in showing us this but also in guiding us in our reading. Of course, critical reading is required of us in any case, also in that of Piper himself. If that is kept in mind, I heartily recommend both Piper and the response of N.T. Wright (as well as Wright’s other popular books to which I referred). Whatever the shortcomings of his theology, Wright does open our eyes to aspects of the gospel and its riches that we may be in danger of forgetting. But in case there is still a suspicion that he may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I quote these words of commendation by John Piper himself: “I am thankful for [Wright’s] strong commitment to Scripture as his final authority, his defense and celebration of the resurrection of the Son of God, his vindication of the deity of Christ, his belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct, and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham – and more” (Piper, pp. 15f.).Frederika Oosterhoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06340388418031783192noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2004197800618234561.post-86198679897342950412011-07-25T06:46:00.000-07:002011-07-25T08:52:08.745-07:00Academics and Church MembershipThank you, Freda, for beginning <a href="http://reformedacademic.blogspot.com/2011/07/are-we-too-isolationist.html">an important discussion</a>. In this post, I would like to highlight the connection between academics and church membership, by first telling my story and then giving some suggestions.<br /><br />I grew up with the assumption that the world was cleanly divided into two camps: people in North America were either members of a Canadian Reformed church (CanRC) or they were heathens. How this thinking arose in me is quite unclear, as this was certainly never taught explicitly by parents, teachers, or ministers. But neither was it, as far as I recall (and my recollection is not perfect), taught against, and I have spoken with many who felt similarly, as well as many who didn’t. This remained my view until somewhere during my graduate studies in physics, just under 20 years ago. This despite attending a public school in Fergus for Grades 11-13, where many others attended who belonged to other churches, and where my geography teacher invited me to a discussion of faith & geology (which I ignored impolitely; after all, he couldn’t have been a Christian). Furthermore, as an undergrad at the University of Waterloo, a number of my classmates and even the professor with whom I interacted most were Christians; their invitations to talk about Christianity were equally impolitely rejected. Of course I could not attend Redeemer College where the devil walked in slippers; in Waterloo he walked in wooden shoes. I did not get involved with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF). Fortunately, matters of faith and academics were not entirely sidelined, as I was involved with a Canadian Reformed student fellowship which met in Hamilton about once a month during the academic year and held a retreat during most years. When considering which graduate school to attend, I recalled the map of North America on which “all” the churches were plotted, and its vast USA wasteland: except for Grand Rapids, Laurel, and Lynden, there were no Christians in that heathen land.<br /><br />So it appears black-and-white thinking was solidly entrenched in me, likely due not entirely to denominational influences and perhaps more due to my own immature personality.<br /><br />It was not until I received from an elder in Langley CanRC a copy of an early issue of <a href="http://www.modernreformation.org/"><i>Modern Reformation</i></a> (I think it might have been the issue themed <a href="http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=issuedisplay&var1=IssRead&var2=79">“Wanted: Thinking Christians”</a>) that I realized my false dichotomy: there were actually confessional, Reformed Christians in North America outside the CanRC. And eventually, I grew to understand that even Baptists, Pentecostals, and Mennonites (etc.) are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Around the same time, thanks to an erudite high-school teacher friend, I became aware of books such as <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=z9D6QOfl4c8C"><i>Creation Regained</i></a> by Al Wolters. And suddenly I soared into the world of academics and faith with newfound wings, and have learned to appreciate (although not without critique) the Reformational philosophy of Dooyeweerd (and his colleagues Schilder and Vollenhoven), and entered with confidence the world of InterVarsity as well as other broader networks of academics and Christians. Along the way, I have grown in my regard for the Reformed distinctives, and am committed to confessional Reformed church membership.<br /><br />I believe few are today walking in my shockingly insular footsteps of some twenty years ago. But there is still more I think we could grow in, in the area of academics and church membership. We could better prepare our university-bound students to appropriately engage their classmates, their professors, their discipline, rather than stick to those they know. We should send our students into public or Christian universities with confidence, grateful for their background, and not be afraid that too much interaction will dilute their faith. We ought to encourage our students who go to university to be appropriately <a href="http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/2710/">open to new and challenging ideas</a>, and not just to gain the knowledge and skills they need to get a good job. We should not expect our students to simply carry on the cultural traditions and notions of their fathers, but rather to discern, develop, and deploy their talents for the glory of God and the advancement of the Kingdom in its cosmic scope.<br /><br />I am encouraged by recent developments in both <a href="http://www.derocheretreat.com/DerocheCollegeRetreat.html">BC</a> and <a href="http://www.campfirebiblecamp.ca/froshweek/">Ontario</a> in which a student retreat is held prior to the new academic year. But I am discouraged that these discussions are not routinely followed up in regular meetings throughout the year. I would like to encourage those organizing these retreats to set aside time to discuss matters such as those I’ve raised in the previous paragraph, and to promote ongoing conversations perhaps led by members of their own community who are experienced in academics.<br /><br />Being a Christian and an academic can be an isolating experience. As a member of a congregation, you may be one of only a few who take advanced studies. As a university student, you may be one of only a few Christians. But perhaps our vision is not large enough to see and engage with more of our fellow academics who are Christians, and perhaps we can do more to encourage diligent and significant scholarship.Arnold Sikkemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02914734765194448215noreply@blogger.com2