Karen Armstrong (pronounced Car-en, if you care) isn’t a religion scholar I’d normally recommend, but I think she makes a fairly good description of what appears to be a good bit of the situation we find ourselves in as regards the relationship of religion and science.
In short, religion hasn’t always carried around the obligation to “prove” God and his ways. As far as Christianity goes, it was a buy-in into rationalism that produced the kind of rationalistic fundamentalism that is, in my opinion, driving a lot of evangelicals into positions of increasing hostility to the findings of science. It’s common to read intelligent Christians, sometimes those who work in fields requiring technical proficiency, talking as if our default position toward science must be absolute skepticism or worse.
This morning at church, a little child sang “Jesus loves me….cause the Bible tells me so.” I wondered if that same child, wanting to be a doctor or an astronomer someday, will find out that they need to add verses like “The earth is 10,000 years old….” and “All scientists are lying….” Thankfully this isn’t true in every Christian communion. Please speak up if it’s not yours. Someone surely needs to know.
The divide between rationalistic apologists on the one hand and mystics/practitioners on the other is there for anyone to see. Evangelicalism has developed an entire personality of the rational devotionalist who can convince you that the Bible is whatever you want it to be in the realm of knowledge, from a book about the love of Jesus to a manual for all scientific knowledge to a diagnostic manual for the psychiatrist.
Suggest that dinosaurs might not have been on the ark and watch what happens. Evangelicals are puzzling me right now. They do know that Dr. Francis Collins is an evolutionist, right? He’s not on staff at AIG.
While I’m sure Armstrong can be faulted in some of her intellectual history, I have to agree that evangelicals are increasingly a group determined to set faith over against science and to find a way to put the word “Christian” in front of everything so that it’s OK for us to handle it.
I have sometimes wondered how much of my life I’ve spent listening to people who were, in their presentation of their beliefs, making no appeal to me other than a kind of badly aimed rationalism, where the fact that they could speak loudly and wave their views around convincingly was supposed to make up for any real personal credibility? How many blogosphere theologians are living the life taught by the Christ they constantly rant about being at the center of their life? Is the impression that many are living no different than anyone else in this culture just me?
I constantly come across people who love both Wright and Piper, and they want to know how the two sync, or don’t. Wright’s answers to these specific questions regarding the differences between himself and Piper are very clear. If you are one of those people who imagine they can both be on target, I’d say you should think again.
Wright’s contention is that Piper and other reformed voices tend to displace justification outside of its place in the Biblical story and make it virtually the entire story. I’d say that not only do they do that, but they are quite ready to label you as a dangerous heretic if you have any argument with that conclusion.
I’m not prepared to say Wright’s views are flawless- his idea of the “whole life lived” always has me hitting the brakes, though his longer explanations usually help- but I’m firmly in his camp as to where justification occurs in the overall message of the Bible. It’s bizarre to say that locating justification properly is somehow rejecting it. Those who do reject justification deserve to be deemed dangerous. Those who make less of it in the total picture of the Bible than some do aren’t in that category at all.
Vedy vedy eentaresting…
Particularly so as a person who once worshipped all things Piper and had slowly and steadily moved farther and farther from that place, almost avoiding Piper and voices like him if and when possible… I am now enjoying NT Wright’s stuff like the good rich food that it is, slowly and thoughtfully working my way through “Surprised by Hope” with a pencil in hand, and a small stack of some of his other books sitting by to be gone through next.
I still don’t exactly have words for WHY or even HOW I went from deeply admiring Piper to finding myself troubled about some of the things he says and teaches… But I’ve never put the two men together until now, reading this post.
Btw, did you see this (re. Piper)? A friend sent it my way, this being the former pastor of a friend of hers who has nothing but good to say about the guy. It was an interesting read:
http://peripateticpastor.blogspot.com/2009/05/young-restless-and-revolting.html
At times it seems that the young-Earth creationists have a stranglehold on our churches and the Christian education system, but there are signs of hope. People like Francis Collins (who accepts both an old Earth and evolution) and Hugh Ross (who accepts an old Earth but rejects evolution) have helped the church to see that there is a diversity of viewpoints on origins within evangelicalism.
Many leading apologists and theologians (past and present) accept an old Earth, or at least consider it to be a possibility. These include:
–J.I. Packer
–Francis Shaeffer
–Norman Geisler
–Charles Spurgeon
–C.S. Lewis
–William Lane Craig
–J.P. Moreland
–Gleason Archer
–Walter Kaiser
–Charles Hodge
–B.B. Warfield
–R.A. Torrey
Perhaps it is different in the hills of Kentucky, but I have been able to hold to an old-Earth position within Christian ministry without taking a whole lot of flack. Some strongly disagree with me, but they have at least listened to what I have to say.
It is different within driving distance of the Creation Museum, yes. I could deny the trinity and get less flack.
I live within about an 90 minutes from the Creation Museum in Kentucky across the river from Cincinnati. So needless to say, “young-earth creationism” is the going thing here. As a believer of 36 years, I have never been persuaded by the biblical and intellectual contortions necessary to believe in the young earth thing, so I just try not to discuss it with other Christians. The couple of times I have engaged on any level, it isn’t long before my spirituality or even my salvation is questioned. Swell. So I just try to avoid the whole zero-sum game.
As the mother of three teens, one entering college this fall, I have long been disappointed in the religious right’s antipathy toward science and intellectualism in general. We have encouraged our boys to think for themselves, and I understand our eldest has gotten into some interesting and even combative conversations with some young people from a very large, fundamentalist church in our town. I advised him to just stop engaging about the issue, but apparently, he did not think my advice was the way to go. Pretty soon he slapped a sticker on his backpack that said “The Flintstones Was Not A Documentary”, so I’m guessing he is not as uncomfortable with the whole debate as I am. And ultimately, I believe it is good for him to have his ideas challenged, and at the least, it will enable him to hone and sharpen his own arguments.
“The flintstones was not a documentary” is pretty funny. Kudos to your son, Savannah.
One thing that troubles me about the ascendence of rationalism as a means of verifying or legitimizing faith in Evangelical Christianity is that it seems to remove God from the equation, somehow. The emphasis moves from allowing oneself to become a vessel for an ultimately unknowable God to do His unfathomable will, to a battle of wits between two humans.
I understand that Christians are called to spread the good news of Christ as savior, and I understand that words are needed to do that. But I sometimes feel that in current Christian circles, it is so much more about proving the unprovable, rather than living lives of bold faith.
So often, it seems to me that many of the people of zealous faith that I encounter (faith in a Christian God, faith in a Muslim God, faith in the impossibility of God’ existence) seem to feel some perverse need to argue me into their corner. I always wonder if there is some underlying insecurity there- do people of faith need things to be watertight, need to see their beliefs reflected back at them in the faces of others? If so, how strong of a belief is that? And where is the room for wonder, for mystery, for what is more than human?
iMonk, I too live within a short distance from the Creationism Propaganda Center, er…the Creation Museum. Which is also home to the “Big Butter Jesus” statue, made famous by my favorite comedian, Heywood Banks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq01UYiMyHg). But I digress…
Probably the best sites for helping believers understand the relationship between science and faith are Francis Collins’ Biologos (www.biologos.org) and accompanying blog, Science and the Sacred (http://blog.beliefnet.com/scienceandthesacred). These are great resources, user-friendly, wonderfully written in concise layman’s language and in a civil and winsome tone.
And iMonk, I feel your pain. My last opportunity at church ministry ended when this issue became a straw that broke the camel’s back.
Sorry, the Heywood Banks link doesn’t work. For a laugh about the Cincinnati statue, go to http://www.heywoodbanks.com and click the link on “Big Butter.”
A recent Pew study explored the differences between scientists and the public when it comes to scientific issues. Quoting about two hot button issues for fundamentalists/evangelicals:
“When it comes to contemporary scientific issues, these differences are often even larger. Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true.
“And the near consensus among scientists about global warming is not mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.”
Much more at http://people-press.org/report/528/
I first saw that statue several years ago, and immediately wondered how many people have died in accidents caused by that thing.
Imonk,
I’m not being intellecutally lazy, I’ve read the interview and I’ve tried to do a little reading on Wright.
Could you please try to put in laymen terms what the disagreement with Wright is and why Piper would object?
Just from reading the interview I find nothing objectionable.
Is there some undercurrent having to do with salvation or something major I am missing?
Help:)
Austin,
I’m not going to get it any simpler than Trevin. If that doesn’t work for you, I’d say don’t give it any attention. It doesn’t matter.
This might help http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html
ms
Well,
I don’t want to sound like an idiot, and I don’t take your statement as an insult.
Would it be close to say that Wright sees Justificatin as something involving me and my place in a larger picture of redemptive history, while Piper’s view is more just about Me and God?
Thanks for the link.
Austin
Sigh
I’m not trying to insult you. I just can’t boil it down. I’m not that kind of thinker. I sent along the CT primer as a help. Sorrry.
ms
Monk,
That link was great.
AFter reading it,Wrights ideas make perfect sense.
What does that say about me?
No offense taken, I knew you weren’t trying to insult me. I was being honest, not sarcastic for a change.:)
Sadly, I find the issue of justification to be a critical area where N.T. Wright dances very beautifully into heterodoxy.
I recently moved to the Kansas City area and we’ve visted a lot of churches here. In talking with pastors, I’ve always asked about how I would be received as someone who doesn’t believe in a old earth. I’ve been pleasantly surprised – at most chuches I’ve heard “no big deal, we’ve got people here in both camps,” at a few I was told “our official position here is young-earth, but we recognize that other opinions exist and give a nod to them in our teaching. You are welcome here despite our differences.” Only one church that I visited gave me the message that I was “capitulating” in my views. These were mostly SBC, PCA, and independent churches.
An even more pleasant surprise came last night when I engaged a young-earth, home-schooling friend of mine in a conversation about the age of the earth. She was very open to hearing my opinions (despite having watched a Ken Hamm video the week before), admitted she had no extensive scientific training and wanted to learn as much as she could to give the best possible education to her children. I do have a scientific background so she was willing to listen to my ideas and borrowed my copy of “The Creator and the Cosmos” to read. Same thing happened when I brought up my views in a small group I attended – most of them had simply never heard a good presentation of the old-earth view from a theologically conservative Christian before and were very interested.
All this to say – there is hope!
Wright’s view of justification veers toward the Roman Catholic view. I think he runs into the danger of blending together law and gospel, which ought always to be distinguished (your boy Luther once said that anyone who can distinguish law and gospel is a true theologian).
I like the fact that Wright attempts to put the whole Bible together, but on some significant points I don’t think he gets it quite right. It is important to locate justification within the whole sweep of redemptive history, but it must be kept in mind that Wright is not the first person to attempt to do this. It was specifically the post-Reformation scholastics who began to trace the Bible’s storyline around the theme of covenant and develop a covenantal doctrine of justification. In their wake Reformed theologians like Bavinck, Vos, and more recently Gaffin, Horton, and Fesko have done an excellent job of putting these things in a whole-Bible context.
I have read some of Wright’s recent comments about his debate with Piper (and just snippets of the most recent book), and I am convinced that Wright does not have a competent understanding of historical theology. He knows the New Testament and early Judaism backwards and forwards. But until he learns to be more conversant with what Piper is actually saying, he will remain confused on the issue of justification.
I live a heck of a long ways from the creation museum (on an island in Puget Sound) however Ken Ham’s video series was a topic of Sunday school at my church a few years ago. Once again, our head elder (pastor’s right hand man) made the statement . . . after I said that I did not agree with Ham’s young earth view . . . that “you cannot know Christ and believe in an old earth.†Ouch! I am considered a flake in my church for this and other reasons.
My wife doesn’t know why the age of the earth is such an issue with me. I honestly couldn’t care less about what others believe. I totally respect them. However,it becomes personal when; a.) I am told that I don’t know Christ and b.) my kids are taught that young earth is a Biblical truth on the same level as Jesus is God’s son. Once a kid learns that the first “truth†is not true . . . what is stopping them from doubting the second truth?
This last issue is why I gave my son, when he was in high school (and is now working on his PhD), a pass from church to go out and sit in the car and read Hugh Ross (and we discussed it over lunch) rather than sit in church and hear that the young earth was the only “Biblical” view.
This is one of those issues that is tied to the 85% of kids leaving the church and the church stands scratching its head and pouring on more guilt manipulation, trying to force them stay.
Thanks for the “your boy” line. I probably don’t understand him enough to be worthy.
Personally, the whole age-of-the-earth debate seems to revolve around one question: can an earth that old be conformed to the scriptural account? If it can, than the theologian’s concern on the whole matter should drop. Though it could theoretically affect some issues (did animals die before the fall?), I can’t think of anything of actual substance that it would affect, at least assuming a literal, historical Adam and Eve.
I tend to reject evolution on scientific grounds more than theological (I’ve heard some very convincing arguments), but if it turns out to be true, it changes very little about anything else. Thus I tend to not get into many debates over it.
Of course, if evolution / old earth is incompatible with Scripture, than we must reject it. I’ll leave that up to more advanced scholars than I though
Wright’s book on Justification is much more conciliatory than things I had read by him previously. He seemed much more accepting of Reformation theology, only concerned, in my view rightly, with placing it securely in the context of the Biblical story and Jewish setting.
Did I read that wrong?
I’m one of those people who love both Piper and Wright, but I agree that ultimately their views regarding justification can’t be reconciled. I lean towards Piper on this one, simply because I think Wright gets his assessment of Second Temple Judaism wrong, and therefore his interpretation of Paul is fundamentally impacted. Quite often, it’s presented as an either/or regarding “being made right with God through Christ’s imputed righteousness” versus “who belongs in the covenant community”. Paul obviously addresses both the soteriological issue and the racism/ecclesiological issue. We need to see and understand both. Has traditional Reformed/Lutheran theology emphasized the first to the exclusion of the second? Too much so, I agree. But the answer isn’t to do the opposite and ignore the first in order to emphasize the second. Can people land on both sides of this issue and still be Christian/ Absolutely. Does that mean it’s not an important issue that needs to be hammered out more? Not at all. This is a fundamentally important doctrine and must be seen that way. But equally sincere Christians have reached conclusions that are not reconcilable and we need to keep listening and arguing and respecting. I will continue to read Piper and Wright and be blessed by both.
Now on to science…(tune in next post)
I’ve been reading some E. J. Bicknell recently and I recognize in his work much of the tradition that N. T. Wright has inherited. (The Anglican heritage of only using two initials has apparently been going strong for a while.) It’s been interesting reading. Related to this discussion, one of my favourite passages from Bicknell is concerning the purpose of revelation:
Savannah, I have got to get me one of those bumper stickers!
Sarah O, I love what you have to say! Couldn’t agree more. Sadly, your words about arguing someone into a corner hit too close to home for me. I’ve been guilty of that too many times to count. And yes, it was borne out of insecurity on my part. It’s a painful reminder, but nonetheless needful, and for that I thank you.
There seems to be a deep seated fear among many if not most evangelicals to science in general and evolutionary science in particular. I attend and am a member of an OPC church, which is about as theologically conservative as you can get. I suspect most of the members are YEC (Young Earth Creationist) in their views. I’ve been pretty open about my scientific convictions as a Christian evolutionist. A large part of the antipathy towards evolutionary science comes from the accident of timing in which evolutionary theory emerged. The mid 1800′s was an era of theological tumult to say the least. Theological liberalism was spreading like wildfire through all of the mainline churches. The reaction to this movement, fundamentalism, decided that anything modern was therefore an enemy to true faith, including science. Were there evolutionists who were enemies of Christian faith? Absolutely. Did theological liberalism embrace evolution unquestioningly? Pretty much so. And they did so because they didn’t regard the authority of scripture seriously. That obviously complicated the issue tremendously. However, as others have already mentioned, there have been and continue to be Christians who are theologically orthodox who nonetheless accept the scientific validity of evolutionary biology (not to mention evolutionary cosmology). Just in the last few years there has been an explosion of new materials available for Christians from Christians regarding the integration of faith and science.
Biologos from Francis Collins is a great start.
The Faraday Institute, which Denis Alexander is associated with, I very highly recommend.
And speaking of Denis Alexander, he wrote I believe, the seminal work on the subject, “Creation or Evolution: Do We Have To Choose?”. It’s scientifically sound, but he also digs deep into the most thorny theological issues.
I would also recommend “Coming To Peace With Science” by Darrell Falk. There are numerous other resources out there now, unlike years past, and so it’s getting better.
I recommend two websites: http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.com/ and http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/
They each have helped me tremendously.
Will we get an exhaustive answer to all of our questions concerning the interaction between science and faith? Not on this side of eternity. But that’s OK with me.
What bothers me about the whole Piper v. Wright debate is that it seems like these two men (or at least their followers) act like their difference of opinion on this is a really big deal. Here’s what I know, not having particularly studied up on them:
a) Wright is a theologian, or something.
b) Piper pastors a congregation in Minnesota.
c) both are in the Reformed wing of American Protestantism.
d) both seem to have fairly devoted followings.
And I’m not 100% sure about all of those. Now that’s the impact these two men (both undoubtedly great men of the faith) have had on someone who’s been a Christian for coming up on 22 years, all of them living in the U.S., and has read fairly widely. So I can’t help but think that maybe a debate on a secondary point of theology between two guys whom possibly 99% of the church has never heard of is just not that important in the grand scheme of things.
Just maybe. I’m open to other viewpoints.
ChristSpeak:
“Of course, if evolution / old earth is incompatible with Scripture, than we must reject it.”
Why not reject scripture instead?
While I’m all for the “hey can’t science and religion just get along” argument, I can’t say that currently they aren’t mortal enemies, but not for the reasons assumed. science isn’t God’s enemy, merely His means here in the physical. I have noticed that the average Christian is not intellectually equipped to deal with such issues. While science, in its pure sense is not at odds with Christianity, the modern perception of science and scientist as infallible truth and unbiased spectators. The truth is that many notable modern scientist see science as able to answer any and all questions concerning existence, including God and faith issues, mostly towards the atheistic approach. If you’ll look at history and how science tried to cram their own personal agendas into their “science” it becomes apparent, just look at Eugenics, embryonic issues, primordial soup theory and its many preposterous(and failed) experiments and suppositions. Newton said it best, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
The author of this article does not understand radio isotope dating methods and the TREMENDOUS assumptions built into a handful of dating methods by evolutionists. It is the same for astronomy.
Why don’t people in the media urge debate between specialists on both sides? It’s hidden fear they cover with sarcastic (and worse) comments about us YECs.
There is more evidence for YEC surfacing quite regularly as science (as in true knowledge) progresses. These misled “scientists” of today and the past have been deluded and delude the masses. No? Debate publicly then, with the best chosen by each side; NOT the evolutionists choosing the creation scientist THEY want.
Just as important as whether the chicken or the egg came first, is who is the chicken here?
As a brand new student of biblical Greek (it’s my first semester), I find myself curious as to Armstrong’s translation of logos as “science” or “reason.” Of course, Day One of biblical Greek teaches logos to mean “word” or “speech.” Add into that a class I took a few semesters ago on historical theology that discussed the philosophical concept of the Logos in 1st Century Helenistic culture (esp. in Platonic Realism and proto-gnosticism), and her translation seems a little wierd to me. Is this an issue of Classical Greek being different than Koine Greek? Or is this one of those areas where “Armstrong can be faulted in some of her intellectual history”?
Interesting this subject (science and faith)is on your site right now. A very good friend of mine and fellow church member is the science teacher at the largest christian school in the area. He and I have been discussing science and faith issues for a while and I persuaded him to watch the Gordon Glover series on Science and Christian Education http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/science-and-christian-education/science-and-christian-education-page-1/ Last week he was given an article by the principal from Ken Ham that had to do with a survey about young people leaving the faith and Ham’s proposed solution which was to brow-beat them early and often with YEC. He wrote her back suggesting this might not in the best interest of the kids education and requested a meeting to discuss. He and his school are literally at the cross-road in deciding how science is to be taught. And since this is the largest christian school in the area, their decision will have ramifications for christian education in the whole area.
If I lose my job at some point, this Hamm strategy will likely be the reason. Our current head administrators have been great on this issue, but successors likely won’t.
Another reason to buy my book when it appears
I feel it’s important to understand that the debate is fundamentally not about the age of the earth but about epistemology – how we acquire knowledge about the world around us. If the discussion boils down to ‘my high school teacher says this’ or ‘my pastor says that’, then there is actually an agreement on epistemology; knowledge is that which is imparted to us by those in positions of authority; the debate then becomes WHO we should listen too.
However, whenever I see the debate being carried out in these terms I feel that both the church and the scientific establishment has failed in their duties. As a scientist, church leader, and occasional educator it is not my job to persuade people to regurgitate the right soundbites on demand, but to give them a framework for learning.
On the fairly infrequent occasions that I’m asked about this topic, I don’t say that I’m an ‘evolutionist’, as though a particular scientific model was a dogma that I follow religiously. Rather I describe myself as an empiricist; and explain what that means. Namely, like all scientists since the Enlightenment, I believe that physical truth is observable, quantifiable, and testable. Like Popper I believe that knowledeg about our physical world is gained by proposing hypotheses and mechanisms for testing them; and rejecting or refining them based on the outcome of these repeatable tests. Also like Popper I believe that the strength of a scientific theory lies in its ability to be tested.
Living in Canada this debate has never for me taken on the contentious nature that some have described here, for which I’m truly thankful, but I believe that the debate could be far more productive if it were centered around questions of epistemology. For example ‘How can we learn about the world around us?’, ‘Is truth concrete and knowable?’, and one that’s interesting me particularly right now: ‘are there things that are true but not quantifiable?’
This morning at church, a little child sang “Jesus loves me….cause the Bible tells me so.†I wondered if that same child, wanting to be a doctor or an astronomer someday, will find out that they need to add verses like “The earth is 10,000 years old….†and “All scientists are lying….â€
Actually, it’s “The earth is 6013 years old…”
Suggest that dinosaurs might not have been on the ark and watch what happens.
Same thing as when I switched from a Mac to Windows PC: Red face, bulging eyes, cords bulging in neck, and scream of “DIE, HERETIC!!!!!!!”
While I’m sure Armstrong can be faulted in some of her intellectual history, I have to agree that evangelicals are increasingly a group determined to set faith over against science…
As Mohammed abu-Hamid al-Ghazali did to Islam some 800 years ago. (And look where it got them…)
…and to find a way to put the word “Christian†in front of everything so that it’s OK for us to handle it.
“It’s gotta be Christian — look how shoddy it is!”
– SF litfandom proverb around the Eighties
I understand that Christians are called to spread the good news of Christ as savior, and I understand that words are needed to do that. But I sometimes feel that in current Christian circles, it is so much more about proving the unprovable, rather than living lives of bold faith. — Sarah O
It’s all a big game of one-upmanship. “I’M RIGHT! YOU’RE WRONG! HAVE FUN IN HELL! HAW! HAW! HAW!”
So often, it seems to me that many of the people of zealous faith that I encounter (faith in a Christian God, faith in a Muslim God, faith in the impossibility of God’ existence) seem to feel some perverse need to argue me into their corner. — Sarah O
Again, “I’M RIGHT! YOU’RE WRONG! HAW! HAW! HAW!”
I always wonder if there is some underlying insecurity there- do people of faith need things to be watertight, need to see their beliefs reflected back at them in the faces of others? If so, how strong of a belief is that? — Sarah O
One so weak it requires constant support and pumping up, can only tolerate utter agreement and praise, and cannot exist with anything outside of its own utter certainty. Anything.
After 9/11, I read an analysis that suggested that 9/11 was not so much a terrorist attack as an Act of Faith, a desperation move to PROVE Al’lah was there and would fulfill His promises to His Faithful: “See, Al’lah? How Faithful we are? Enough so You will intervene and give Islam victory!”
And where is the room for wonder, for mystery, for what is more than human? — Sarah O
They have all been burned for Heresy.
Steve S…there is no “evidence” for YEC because YEC by definition is not science. Anything that starts with a determined conclusion already set in stone (pardon the pun) is not a legitimate scientific enterprise. You are following an entirely different method than the scientific method. YEC is only concerned with proving what they think the Bible already says by trying to find “evidence.” That’s why no actual scientists will listen to you.
Once again, our head elder (pastor’s right hand man) made the statement . . . after I said that I did not agree with Ham’s young earth view . . . that “you cannot know Christ and believe in an old earth.†— JMJ
This is called “Ees Party Line, Comrades.”
Christ as nothing more than a Party Line of YEC Uber Alles, Pin-the-Tail-on-The-Antichrist, and piously denouncing everything in-between. Somebody explain to me how THAT ever spread across the early Roman Empire?
This is one of those issues that is tied to the 85% of kids leaving the church and the church stands scratching its head and pouring on more guilt manipulation, trying to force them to stay. — JMJ
Remember the Soviet Union and its clones? Whenever they had a problem with their “kids leaving the church”, the solution was always the same: Increase Political Consciousness Re-Education.
Long ago, I used to joke that the only difference between some Christians and the Communists was they quoted different Party Lines. Looks like the joke was on me.
Thanks so much for pointing to this fine article. We desperately need to recover the word pistis. She is exactly write that “believe” was the right translation 400 years ago. But now the meaning of the word has changed and we have yet to change our translations. Jesus was not calling for intellectual certainty; he was calling for faithful followers.
I am convinced that unless we do serious work explaining ourselves, when we tell people to “believe” they will have no idea what the Bible means by that phrase.
Thanks for your blog, it wakes up my mind every morning.
To Gammel: Can you tell me the citation for that great quote from E. J. Bicknell.
Christ as nothing more than a Party Line of YEC Uber Alles, Pin-the-Tail-on-The-Antichrist, and piously denouncing everything in-between.
You know a different Christ than I do. Where did you meet this one, Berkley or Brown?
If you all think today’s scientific community is sound and rational, look no further than the climate change debate.
I think all scientific theories from YEC to spontaneous evolution and all iterations in between have holes you can drive trucks through. It’s sad that the scientific community has taken on a “religious” tone over the past couple decades, resulting in any opposition to be painted as “irrational” Debate is stifled in the scientific community, and thereby moves to other channels.
I don’t think that belief in any theory should affect your faith, either positively or negatively.
I’m as much offended by somebody saying my faith depends on my belief in Creationism, as I am by somebody that says I do not have a serious understanding of science if I don’t believe in evolution. Both statements are ludicrous.
You know a different Christ than I do. Where did you meet this one, Berkley or Brown? — JMulkey
Neither. Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian Fellowship (TM) after Born-Again Bible-Believing Christian Fellowship (TM), with Scripture (TM) by Hal Lindsay, Jack Chick, et al, until I finally swam the Tiber to escape.
In short, religion hasn’t always carried around the obligation to “prove†God and his ways. — IMonk
This obsession for PROOF(TM)! is what fuels all those expeditions for Noah’s Ark and all those End Time Prophecy charts cross-referencing current events. Lotsa Christians want Absolute Proof (TM) that they can rub in everybody else’s face — “SEE? I’M RIGHT! YOU’RE WRONG! SEE? SEE? SEE?” And finding Noah’s Ark with its freeze-dried dinosaur poo and/or getting Raptured right on schedule while everybody else is Left Behind WOULD be that Absolute PROOF. “I’M RIGHT! YOU’RE WRONG! HAW! HAW! HAW!”
Which is why God don’t play that game.
Steve S said “The author of this article does not understand radio isotope dating methods and the TREMENDOUS assumptions built into a handful of dating methods by evolutionists. It is the same for astronomy.”
Maybe I didn’t read the Karen Armstrong article closely enough, but I don’t think she said anything about radiometric dating or the age of the universe.
I just finished Thousands… Not Billions which reports the latest YEC thinking on radiometric dating, and found it to have significant problems. The chapter on fission-track dating, which I used in graduate school, had errors that indicated the author had only a superficial knowledge of the method, along with some circular reasoning. Thankfully, the more sophisticated YECs have jettisoned some of their older ideas on the topic. However, they have introduced new ideas that are just as problematic.
If you want an analysis of the “tremendous” assumptions that go into radiometric dating from a conservative Christian perspective, I would recommend The Bible, Rocks, and Time by Young and Stearley.
As long as the YEC movement continues to consistently present bad arguments in defense of the truthfulness of Scriptures, and as long as there are alternative interpretations from within the theologically conservative community, I will continue to reject young-Earth creationism. It is bad apologetics and should not be used in our churches and schools.
Steve S…there is no “evidence†for YEC because YEC by definition is not science. Anything that starts with a determined conclusion already set in stone (pardon the pun) is not a legitimate scientific enterprise. — Chaplain Mike
As Stephen J Gould put it, “Creation Science is not science because its theories are not falsifiable.” According to Gould, a true scientific theory will always have the possibility of being proved false.
If there is no possibility of proving it false (“And then a Miracle happened… And then a Miracle happened… And then a Miracle happened…”) it’s not science, it’s The Party Line where Reality must bow before Ideology and Goodthinkers Doubleplusbellyfeel INGSOC.
As long as the YEC movement continues to consistently present bad arguments in defense of the truthfulness of Scriptures, and as long as there are alternative interpretations from within the theologically conservative community, I will continue to reject young-Earth creationism. It is bad apologetics and should not be used in our churches and schools. — Kevin N
Even when YEC becomes (has become, actually) THE Litmus Test of whether You’re Really Really Really a Real True Christian?
And BE-LEEEVING in YEC (instead of Christ) becomes the entire Gospel?
HUG is totally on target imo.
I just add a brief point to what has been said. I suspect (and I don’t know of any surveys to prove it)but that vast majority of the 80%+ youth that leave the church do so, not because they have been “hood winked” by the evolutionists . . . but finding out one day that they have been lied to by good Christian people . . . about a lot of things.
Headless Unicorn:
I’m not a fan of YEC, but I disagree with Stephen J Gould’s reason for rejecting it. Most philosophers of science these days reject Popper’s idea that falsifiability is the key part of science. In reality, very few scientists work to show that their own work is false; they are more interested in showing that their own work is successful. On this basis, YEC fails to be good science because it fails to be successful.
I should have added a bit to my final sentence:
On this basis, YEC fails to be good science because it fails to be successful in explaining how the universe, the Earth, and life got to be the way they are.
Having not grown up in the church, I had no particular reason to believe the Earth was young. I had no reason to doubt it’s age when I learned about it in science class. I really had no faith reason to doubt evolution either (though I never have and still don’t buy into Darwinian evolution — though it has nothing to do with Genesis 1).
So I came to Christ with less baggage in that regard. I think, living in California means I run into far less YEC than maybe some of you do. I do have YEC Christian friends/family, though none of them are fanatical about it (eg, they don’t care what I believe).
My wife and I just went back to our old church (long story) 2 weeks ago. Our current church is part of the Evangelical Covenant and they have no doctrine on creation. In fact, I had coffee with my pastor (when I told him I wanted to come back) and talked to him briefly about the whole evolution/creation/YE/OE debate and how I think being dogmatic about it is a poor witness and in fact, could be damaging — because we may leave people with the impression that they either have to accept a YE or deny evolution in order to be a Christian — as if their choice was atheistic old earth evolution or faithful Christianity and a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
Oh I forgot to add…
And my pastor agreed with me.
Kevin, falsifiability is critical to the enterprise we call ‘science’. Theories are never proven, but may be disproven by experimentation. More than a century after the publication of ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’, I remain convinced that no one has proposed a more cohesive framework for scientific methodology than Sir Karl.
Falsifiability is fundamental to what it means to be scientific. If a theory is contradicted by experimental data, it is false. If it cannot be tested experimentally, it may well be true, but it’s not science.
Furthermore, we need to remember that science can only concern itself with matters that are quantifiable as well as empirical. It’s not enough to say ‘my experiment fits your theory’, but we have to be able to say ‘my experimental data conforms with your theoretical predictions with an error margin of 0.25%’
A prime example of this is Quantum electrodynamics, where theory and experiment have the same results to within a few parts in a billion.
quote: “Wright’s contention is that Piper and other reformed voices tend to displace justification outside of its place in the Biblical story and make it virtually the entire story. I’d say that not only do they do that, but they are quite ready to label you as a dangerous heretic if you have any argument with that conclusion.”
While my theology is Lutheran, for pastoral reasons I’ve currently at a Reformed Baptist SBC church where the pastor and leaders are big admirers of men such as Piper. I’ve also read quite a bit of Reformed theology. I just finished Calvin’s “Institutes of Christian Religion.” So I’m not Reformed, but I am familiar with the Reformed and their theology.
The above statement doesn’t strike me as correct. Perhaps Reformed critiques of Wright seem to make justification the entire biblical story in their criticism of his work. Nonetheless, on the whole the big emphasis of Reformed theology is not justification. Rather, it is God’s sovereignty and glory. The Reformed get the gospel right. However, sometimes the doctrine of justification seems to be a sub-set of God’s sovereignty or his glory.
Here are two brief examples of this:
A recent excerpt from an article on Calvin from the “Desiring God” website:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/1471_The_Divine_Majesty_of_the_Word/
“When Calvin did eventually get to the issue of justification in his response to Sadolet, he said, “You . . . touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us. . . . Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished” (see note 8). So here again you can see what is fundamental. Justification by faith is crucial. But there is a deeper root reason why it is crucial. The glory of Christ is at stake. Wherever the knowledge of justification is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished. This is always the root issue for Calvin. What truth and what behavior will “illustrate the glory of God”?
The opening lines of “The Westminister Catechism”
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
Contrast this to “The Smalclad Articles” or Luther’s “Small Catechism” where justification by grace alone through faith in Christ alone is called the chief and most important article of the Christian faith, without which the church will fall and you will see the difference. Again, it may seem that the Reform make justification to be the end all be in within the context of their criticism of N.T. Wright. Overall, however, I don’t see how justification can be said to be the main focus of Reformed theology.
rr