God is Creative
As most of you know I live in Kansas City. Many of you are also aware of what's been going on next door to us over in Kansas with the whole intelligent design being taught in schools controversey. It just goes to show how self-centered I can be, but having worked through this issue way back in jr. high I just assumed that since I had made up my mind it must not still be that big of an issue right? That my friends is wrong. Recently this became apparent when some folks in my church attended a seminar on intelligent design over in Kansas. They came back with a lot of enthusiasium about this hot "new" topic and wanted to bring the discussion to our own church.Well before I get into that, let me first give you a little of my own story. I grew up in a conservative little farming & oil town in New Mexico where being a follower of Jesus was linked with a very conservative evangelical understanding of the world, and the "L" word (liberal) was akin to foul language. My parents are very conservative and in the early 90's my father proudly thought of himself as a "ditto-head." In the midst of this world my mother stuck out as one of the few (if not the only) Christians I knew who was a firm believer in theistic evolution. Mom is a scientist and comes from a family of scientists. Mom is also a committed follower of Christ. I found Mom's paradox puzzling as a kid who's only understanding of Christianity was a pretty fundamentalist one. But it didn't take long for me to understand where my mother was coming from, she believed that God is creative enough to use something as amazing as evolution to create this world and the species in it. In fact that made a lot of sense to me and has ever since.
So fast forward to 2005, and the intelligent design debate raging around these parts. When these folks came back to the church pumped up about intelligent design my first reaction was one of defensiveness. My own history of balancing my faith in Christ with theistic evolution wasn't always encouraging. Where I grew up, being a Christian and agreeing with Darwin were pretty much proof that you were a "secular humanist" and weren't really a Christian... not born again anyway. So my gut instinct has been to defend those kids who find evolution to be particularly compelling but even more so are devoted to following Christ. Seeing them get the cold-shoulder from their church peers has always bugged me and I've wanted to be a champion for them saying, "there's room for them among us!" So when my fellow brothers from Church suggested working intelligent design into what I was teaching I felt like I was going to be pressured to tell smart scientific kids that they had to choose, God or science.
After a few emails and a short talk I found out that these parents feel like their kids (who believe in intelligent design) are being told they can't be good scientists because they believe that God created our world and the life so abundant in it. So they want to champion their kids and say, "you can be a Christian and a good scientist!" And to that I say amen. I suppose that my own preconcieved notions of "the MidWest" made me think that it would be the theistic evolutionary kids who would be shunned (and in Kansas, I bet that's still a reality). I still have a lot of reservations about trying to prove how and where and when God went beyond the normal process of evolution to "speed things up" as it were. I am content to let God's ways be a mystery and have faith that God is creative, God is the creator, without the complexity of blood-clotting doing it for me. I think that intelligent design as an apologetic for Christianity or as a tool for evangelism is a bad and dangerous idea, but to understand that the God of Jesus Christ did create this world and continues to create and will eventually redeem all of creation, plants and animals included... there surely is room for that to co-exist with (and enrich!) science.
I just finished a book by Brian D. McLaren called The Story We Find Ourselves In, and Brian does an amazing job of walking through some of these issues, and also tying them into the larger story of God creation, calling, redeeming and consumation of this world.
What about you, did you grow up in a place where either your faith or intelligence was questioned because of how you understand creation? How do you encounter this today?
posted by Charlie at 4:08 PM
13 Comments:
Well, I grew up conservative too but my beliefs about evolution were respected. My dad has always been very open minded and encouraged me to seek the truth.
However, I'm not convinced that we have enough evidence to claim that evolution is the way God made the world. I suppose it depends on what one means by evolution. That word means different things to people these days.
I think the serious scientific community, and the serious theological community can all agree that the Intelligent Design theory is bunk. I think we need to find a way for the general population, particularly our lay people in our churches, to listen to the serious scientific and theological communities. I think when they recieve the true education on the subject people won't be so quick to jump on the Intelligent Design bandwagon.
I don't know how we do that though. However, I think I would love to talk to your Mom about what she knows about evolution. The geology viewpoint is much different from the biology viewpoint, I think.
peace. 8mile
My own story is a little different. The whole creationist/evolutionist debate didn't become an issue for me until I happened upon a particular creationist who made it into an issue for me. He has a very, very long and thorough argument, but he does exactly what you fear: turning "creation science" as an evangelism tool. He basically thought he could argue and make fun of evolutionists into a salvation by Jesus. Although a lot of his standpoints are interesting, I really think the whole thing is mostly a waste of time.
It's good to be familiar with the general thrust of each side, but in the end, the "creationist/evolutionist/ID" debate is just flat-out non-salvific. There are more important things to fry than this debate: not trying to win some propositional war, but loving God and neighbor which includes living the works of mercy in witness to the Kingdom.
Peace,
Eric
Thankfully, i grew up with confused parents who were adult enough to say "i have no idea!!" when i asked for the *answers* to the creation/evolution debates in my school. In doing so, they allowed more room for mystery.
As a thoroughly right-brained person, science has never been my thing. Animal Planet, however, IS my thing! National Geographic and Discovery too. Those are great channels to watch if you're a Christian, especially one who is madly in love with a mysterious and creative God like ours. Some of my best moments with God have come from watching tv :] When my kids ask me for the answers i'll say "i have no idea, isn't that great? Now put down your homework and let's watch that Crocodile Hunter guy!"
(PS - i enjoy your mind Charpar :] i wish i could bottle it and drink it, that'd be fun.)
I like Kallie's comment!
I sympathize with your thoughts, Charlie. There are far better "evangelistic tools" out there that don't rely on a historical reconstruction of God's behavior. Let's start a via negativa club!
Jon Manning
What in the Jon Manning is going on here! I had no idea you guys read my blog. Nice.
ps-Kallie thanks for the kind words!
Well Charlie, sorry my comment is so late (again). But that's kinda how I do things. And I can't help but think that it might have been intentional on a just barely unconscious level. See, part of me might be afraid (pretty much without good reason) than one of my students or fellow member of my congregation might link your site from mine and stumble upon this comment, because the local church in which I serve is deeply entrenched in the literal seven days creationism/you cannot be a true, God fearing Christian if you believe evolution might even be a possibility. When I started serving last May the group had just come out of a series on creation/evolution that they brought in a seven day creationist to teach.
One of the girls told me that during the series she asked about Genesis 1:14-19 and wondered how "day," at least on the first three days could mean a day in the way we know them (24 hrs) when the sun was not made until the fourth day. She asked if "day" could be figurative. He replied, "God says what he means." Well, if that's true, then God means to confuse us here.
To me, the biggest part of the problem here is that Christians have bought into a modern deistic, cause and effect, linear concept of time. We see events as horizontal links in a chain, rather than seeing all time and events as overlapping because of their vertical link to the divine. We say we believe God is outside time (unless you like process theology), and that time is dependent on God for its existence, yet we project a human, modernist reading of time onto God's activity. What's a day to God?
Sorry so long...but I feel you on this one...and envy you.
well, what if a conversation about creation did lead to salvation, would it be worth it to discuss then? we do waste a lot of time trying to be right. but what if we didn't. what if we are just trying to open minds to the fact that God is much more creative than our stories can encompass. could the debate be salvific then? Jesus was in on the whole creation thing, if we are truly trinitarian. could there be a story of salvation even at creation? what if it is important not to make God a gap filler to our human construct of existence so that there is even room for a creator that saves the creation from sin. huh.
i don't buy it not being salvific. our identity as (fallen) beings of the Creator is essential to the discussion of salvation. If we simply spontaneously arose from chaotic matter, or if we as humans have figured out God's formula, than what good is salvation to us? Or what good is God to us? if we aren't starting from the same point, Christ's life, death and resurrection means little.
that is my experience using creation as a starting point in conversations. albanians were told there is no God and that science can explain it all. so there is no room for salvation because they don't need it. intelligent design is suicidal for christians trying to have a conversation with a serious scientist who is atheist. it is important to differntiate these issues for some people. and it is salvific for some. maybe you all don't encounter albanian athiests in your line of work. i often have. it does matter, and we do know some things. how long is a day in the creation story? good question, lets explore what we know about that. let's explore and see if this really matters to the story. its not ok to just say, ah pish pash... Jesus. Jesus means nothing to an atheist.
Wil -
It sounds like it's tough to fill your shoes at O-dub right now (that's where you are, correct?). That congregation will always have a place near to my heart, though as we know it has certain tendencies toward particular ways of reading scripture, etc.
Katie and I are teaching a 7th/8th grade Sunday school class at KC First Naz right now, and we have been rather fortunate not to have faced those sorts of battles head-on yet. One thing that has been helpful in our quest to subvert such literalist readings is to remind our kids that the first purpose of the scriptures (as well you know!) is to tell us the story of God's life, and the wonderful miracle and gift of God's creation of all things (and final redemption of these things!). And then we quietly add, "and it's not a history book, like you might read in school. It just doesn't work like that."
I truly hope that your kingdom-witness will continue, especially as you try to make sense of the scriptural narrative for those kids that have legions of questions, such as what 24 hours means without solar bodies. After all, intellectual assent to historical propositions does not a Christian make!
Emily,
I'm not sure I understood what you were saying, or that you understood me. I do think that creation plays a very important part of how we understand salvation! I don't think that intelligent design as a theory is a good tool for evangelism, because you must first convert the person to the shady science behind it, and even if they buy into that, they don't have to come to the God of Christ.
I think that creation is essential to our story, but we should be telling people the story, and helping them become incorporated into it rather than trying to prove God with truth propositions we find by studying blood-clotting.
I think that Emily was responding to my "not salvific" comment, and I think I was misread as well. I totally agree that creation is essential to our story, because we know that Jesus was in the beginning, and in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God, and this same Word is the Son Jesus Christ as given by the Holy Spirit.
What saves us is proclaiming our faith in this mystery and allowing this same God to transform our lives as we live faithfully in the community of believers called Church.
While I completely agree that it is essential and important that we agree that it was indeed God who created all as our creator, what I am maintaining is that what isn't salvific is the debate itself and merely having the right propositions about how it was done. We will never know exactly how it was done by looking to science, nor by looking to the Bible. All will be revealed at the consummation, which hasn't yet arrived. We can get some good ideas --some very good ideas in fact-- but this does not reduce to a God-of-the-gaps "God just did it" theory, either, even though it almost sounds like that. The fact is, science is based on empirical observations, so even science will never be able to truly fill in the gaps of history that we were not around to witness. We can accept scientific theories as "fact" insofar as they best explain some evidence that is left over, but it still doesn't prove anything concretely.
Perhaps one way to speak to people heavily influenced by the propositions of science (like your Albanian friend) is to point out that science is actually less certain that it thinks it is (as are the claims of modernity in general, but that can be addressed later).
What I'm trying to emphasize is that we put our emphasis as Christians in the proper places. Considering I used to buy into Dr. Kent Hovind's entire enterprise at once point where his emphasis was completely jacked up, I think it's important that we emphasize things like the works of mercy by which we shall be judged and live our lives accordingl so that we will be a people ready to answer such questions as how we think God might have created stuff.
Peace,
Eric
Charlie...I agree with everything you said. I was mostly responding to Eric's comment about what is "salvific".
Eric...thank you for clarifying your position. I also maintain that when we debate, (meaning, when many christians do it publicly, in school board meetings and such...) we do it wrong. I am hoping that we can do it right and focus on the important parts of the discussion. I certainly agree the goal of many discussions about creation and evolution is not to be witnesses. And that is too bad. What I read from you is that the debate can 'never' be salvific. And I don't think that was your point. I hope that as a scientist and as a Christian I can reclaim some credibility as a witness having explored the subject deeply. I find God's mercy in evolution, truly. I'm not just trying to make a point. I certainly find God's mercy in the story about our origins from scripture.
I would hate to throw away debate over this topic particularly when it leads to discovery about God. I'm fascinated with the way our bodies and this world works. I do think it is ok to explore the idea that God has gifted us with the capacity to figure things out. But the mystery can never be replaced with fact. You are right. Fact is truly fiction in the broader view of what God has yet to reveal. I am forever a nerd who loves to see what we can know about what God has done and is doing physically, chemically, biologically, etc. in our world. The mystery adds motivation and flavor to my life and my witness. I pray that I add to the corporate witness of the Church in this area. Pointing to Christ. In awe of salvation as well as creation.
Peace, Emily
Emily,
Even though to this day I still know more of the "creationist" arguments of the creationist/evolutionist debate, I find that those who use science to study God's creation and lean more towards the evolutionary side of things find themselves more in awe of God's creation than do the ones who lean more towards the creationist side of things. The ones that lean toward the creationist side of things, in my experience, tend to just think that you have to believe the right, propositional things, whereas I see, generally from those who lean toward science that they find more mystery in their scientific studies. I mean, once you find out one thing, it tends to reveal more questions than you started with. With creationists, it's more of a closed "NO THIS WAS HOW IT WAS" tact, which isn't even interesting, let alone a Christian way to relate to people (even if their position is somehow right, they way they try to get people on board is heinous).
For example, take a look at the James Dobson vs. PLNU science department drama.
Thanks for sharing, Emily.
Peace,
Eric
Charlie. Thanks for this post. I know I'm a month late. Didn't find out about the renewed atom page, so I'm playing catch-up instead of studying for my anatomy final. : D Growing up in OKC, I had a very similar experience, I think. Even when presented with compelling evidence in favor of evolution, I still felt like I wasn't fully Christian if I agreed with it. Moving on to PLNU, I ironically came about becoming a theistic evolutionist first through theology, or at least biblical interpretation. Learning that the bible, and especially Genesis, could not be taken literally as a formula for creation was paramount. I don't know why I didn't compare the "conflicting" creation accounts in the first couple chapters before. Approaching that scripture as Hebrew poetry, not modern scientific formulae, set the stage for learning evolution. Then a few years later I made the whole premed shift, and Dr. Fulcher took over a month in Animal Bio discussing evolution. Honestly, I was convinced about ten minutes into the first lecture, but it took a lot long to convince fundamentalist-leaning freshman. To me one of the most ironic things about the debate is that it's quite apparent Darwin remained a Christian (perhaps even quite a devoted one) well after "The Origin of the Species". Unfortunately, somewhere along the way evolution was framed in such a way to mean atheist. Well, now I've come from a rather conservative-leaning evangelical milieu to a "secular liberal" setting, as Fox News would put it. Out of 150 or so classmates, I'd say there are probably five people who are seriously practicing Christian. To them, Intelligent Design is such a joke. Unfortunately, it is probably the most common reference made to the Christian faith, and it's seriously hurting our witness. (Along with abortion--not necessarily bad if we're being faithful--and anything Bush-related--almost always bad, if you ask me.) It's been interesting engaging with my new friends about the issue. Hopefully I've begun to convince them that all Christians don't look like Bill Frist or Rick Santorum. My two best friends here are an atheist and an agnostic homosexual. Definitely not anything like PLNU, and in many ways its a bit refreshing in a very strange sense. Learning about human anatomy, physiology, development, and any other course crammed in my head in med school, it's so stinking obvious evolution is how we got to where we are. To me, the main problem with ID is not that they want to talk about a creator but that it's just terrible science. (I use science quite liberally here.) Indeed, I find no built-in evidence of a creator as they want to suggest. But if you look at the system as a whole, I think it's incredibly beautiful. Indeed blood coagulation is amazingly intricate, but it's also quite similar to other organisms, and it's easy to track how it developed in us. Some consider that blasphemous. I'm not sure what that has to do with the existence of God, but I do think it's a humbling reminder that, while placed in privilege, we're still a part of creation--and a lot more like it that we often want to admit. I hope the tide is turning (again) towards a culture in which its okay to be Christian and think evolution makes perfect sense. I see that already occurring in biology. Every christian biologist I have met is also an evolutionist. Every creation "scientist" I have met is NOT a trained biologist; they're usually engineers, not the most credible on the topic. Of course God created, just by saying that does not me we were intelligently designed. And I can show you some pictures of vestigial human tail-wagging pictures if you want. : ) Well, you asked for my experience, so I gave a huge rambling paragraph. Hope that's okay. Peace.
P.S. Check out this Times article about evolution in Christian higher ed. I experienced what they discuss first-hand at PLNU. My atheist and agnostic friends were really impressed by this article--there is hope for dialogue!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html?ex=1291352400&en=feb5138e425b9001&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Post a Comment
<< Home