I have been deeply touched by the suffering of the one out of nine Christians who live in hostile regimes:
"It’s hard to imagine being arrested, imprisoned, abused or even killed for inspiring friends and neighbors to read the Bible or for telling them about Jesus. It’s hard to imagine being interrogated or beaten for showing a Christian film. But this is the very stark reality that pastors, evangelists and other front-line gospel workers experience on a regular basis in nations hostile to the Christian faith. And yet tens of thousands of our brothers and sisters in Christ boldly preach the Good News each day in restricted nations and hostile areas, at the risk of severe consequences."
One example is Asia Bibi, who is imprisoned and intended to be hung in Pakistan. Why? She shared a
glass of water and her views with a Muslim co-worker.
Why do these brothers and sisters do it? “Because they have an eternal perspective.” Have we Western
Christians found such joy in knowing Jesus and have an eternal perspective? Would you please join me
in lifting our suffering family before our Father’s Throne of Grace?
(quotes from persecution.com)
This fall all of the Communitas small groups are going through the same small group workbook: The Tangible Kingdom Primer. In this workbook, there has been an action item listed each week. These are great ways to take the themes of this study (and of Scripture) and to act upon them instead of just thinking about them. The hope is that we are making the good news of the Gospel tangible for ourselves and those who aren't part of our church. Whether you've read the book or not, we're inviting you into a challenge. Here's the challenge: do four more in the next two weeks. If you haven't done any of the action items, pick 4. If you've done two, do four more. Then on November 11th, we'll have a time in the Sunday service to hear testimonies about how these exercises went and how you may have experienced God in a tangible way. So be thinking about what you might want to share as a way to proclaim God's movement among us and as an encouragement to the rest of our community. Here are the action items:
This blog post is by our own Dean Schulz. Dean has an extensive background working in, studying and teaching science and he has a deep love for Christ. Last Sunday we looked at this question during our worship service. We asked Dean to write this post as a follow up to Asher's sermon. It is a helpful summary of the different views on this questions. Thanks so much Dean!
An answer to the above question depends much on (1) what a person means by (Christian) “Faith” and (2) what a person means by “Science”. In the following I will briefly consider four views on this question.
1. The Young Earth View
If the definition of Faith includes God creating over only six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago, then the question’s answer is, yes. They do conflict. Why? I will not cite any detail here, but I find internal inconsistencies within this Young Earth view, and I see external incongruities with very well-established physical evidence. That includes evidence from cosmology, geology, anthropology, carbon-dating, and even accounts of ancient history. It certainly conflicts with Darwinian evolution.
I find all the arguments presented by defenders of the Young Earth view very contrived and too skeptical of most science. Where the defenders do try to resolve this view with science, they pick and choose evidence to prove their assumptions, rather than letting the evidence drive the conclusions.
For scientific and theological arguments against this view, see A Matter of Days (Hugh Ross).
2. The Naturalistic Science View
If by Science one means what is commonly taught in high-school and college textbooks, the answer to the above question is again, yes. They conflict. Why?
Such naturalistic teaching puts God out of a job, where the job description includes creating the universe and life and actively interacting with humans throughout history. Many science writers try to paint “faith” as a “spiritual” enterprise entirely separate from physical science. In effect, the typical science in textbooks, media, and universities is at best agnostic, but effectively atheistic. However, the Bible certainly teaches God’s overt interaction with our physical world.
Regarding Darwinian evolution in particular, there is increasing upheaval inside biology which is not very publicly known. Recent conferences have admitted that mutation plus natural selection cannot explain the variety of life as we see it. However, rather than accepting some supernatural explanation, they still stubbornly postulate some undiscovered mindless process that could create all the exquisite intricacy we see in even the simplest cell. No convincing proposals exist to date. I expect none ever.
Further, the “Cambrian Explosion” is a very short period of geological time when nearly all the phyla of animals appeared suddenly. This problem worried Darwin. Recent discoveries make the worry worse. Similarly, the fossil record very poorly supports Darwin’s Tree of Life, which supposedly depicts the common ancestry of all life from a first cell. But there are millions of missing links! In particular, every year a new fossil discovery causes the rewriting of the story about human evolution.
The following science-based resources clearly document the crisis and problems in evolutionary biology: Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells), Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Michael Denton), Darwin’s Doubt (Stephen Meyer), and Darwin’s House of Cards (Tom Bethel).
3. The Theistic Evolution View
Theistic Evolution is an attempt to unify (Christian) faith with science—especially Darwinism. The major voice for this is BioLogos, an organization founded by Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.
Because of the mounting unexplained problems with neo-Darwinian evolution, I find this view to be bankrupt from the start. A recent compendium on this subject by knowledgeable scientists and theologians is Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique.
4. The Intelligent Design View
Any view should follow the biological, geological, and astronomical evidence to where the evidence points—the most reasonable conclusions. I have found this to be true in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. The approach taken by the Discovery Institute (www.discovery.org/id/) follows that principle. Its approach concludes that an Intelligent Designer was clearly involved in the design and creation of the universe and all of life. The Designer is intentionally not identified as such, so it avoids all accusations that ID is anything except science based. Thus, Discovery does not support the Bible as such. (Of course, there are not many realistic candidates for the job of the Designer. Other kinds of evidence can link the Designer to the God of the Bible.) The ID view is very compatible with a science-compatible interpretation of Genesis, which begins with the Big Bang (Gen. 1:1).
Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) takes a more specific view of ID—namely it does explicitly provide a science-compatible interpretation of the Bible. So, the approach of Reasons does make science and Biblical faith compatible. Resources include The Creator and the Cosmos (Hugh Ross) and Who Was Adam? (Fazale Rana)
My 60-year study of the subject of faith and science lead me to see that there is no major conflict between a proper exegesis of Genesis and scientific evidence based on firm facts. For some it means shedding some common interpretations of the Bible or some common interpretations of science discoveries. There still are plenty of questions to resolve. But Intelligent Design seems to be the right direction for unifying faith with science.
This week my kids are at Vacations Bible School (VBS). And thank God for VBS--I mean that sincerely! They love the activities and being with new friends and I love the space 5 mornings in a row to work, rest and see my own friends.
One of the things my kids are learning this week is to be on the look out for "God sightings." VBS ends each day gathering the kids together for a short recap of the day and on Wednesday I arrived a few minutes early and got to listen in as I was standing in a dark hallway adjacent to where the kids were gathered. A woman from the front asked the room full of kids if any had God sightings they wanted to share. Immediately more than half of the kids raised their hands with urgency, hoping to be called on and their responses were beautiful: someone sharing with someone else, butterflies, fun days with friends, nature... Then one kid said, "I get bullied a lot on the bus and so I see God when someone on the bus is nice to me when others are mean."
Cut to me in the dark hallway trying unsuccessfully to blink back tears. In an instant, I was overwhelmed with sadness as I was confronted with the reality of bullying and also filled with gratitude that there are courageously kind kids who are willing to step into those situations. And I was in awe that this particular kid can recognize that as a God Sighting--God as Emmanuel, God with him in that horrible moment.
A minute later, VBS was over and I joined the throng of parents rushing in to pick up their kids and depart for the day. But I keep thinking back to hearing the kids share their God Sightings. If I stood up on Sunday morning and asked for those at church with me to share God sightings, would we (would I?) have anything to share? I often ask God to give me eyes to see "God sightings" but so often I simply go about my day not noticing anything. And could God be calling me, calling us, to be Jesus to those around us who need it (like the kid on the bus) and do I have the eyes to see or ears to hear those invitations? How much more vibrant would my faith feel if I were more aware of God's movement around and through me? Surely it would be so exciting to daily be aware of the ways God is rescuing and reconciling and offering hope to those around us. Here's to "God Sightings" and having eyes to see them and the willingness to share them with those around us.
Fifteen years ago I interviewed for entrance to a Master’s of Urban and Regional Planning program, and as these type of interviews often go I was asked to tell a bit about myself and why I wanted to become an urban planner. Not knowing the rules of propriety on these type of things I began to explain to them that I was a Christian, that I had been heavily impacted by Augustine’s work City of God and because of this believed that as a Christian I wanted to work to make the city a great place for all people to live, whatever their faith may be. My host looked back across the table from me and simply responded, “oh… I’m an atheist.” They accepted me for admission and gave me a scholarship and I was off to transform culture.
I started my life in a rural Pentecostal church led by some Jesus Freaks that had gotten into James Dobson. My upbringing was full of my family trying to making sure that we did not do that which the culture did - we were against culture. The TV show “Who’s the Boss” was off-limits because Tony and Angela lived together, even if he was her housekeeper and they were only friends. It had the appearance of evil and that was enough. He-Man and She-Ra were out because they both clearly were involved with the occult - as were the Care Bears. Mr. Rogers should be watched only in moderation, for of course he was really only about being a nice person (aka works righteousness), and he was a Presbyterian which made us additionally suspicious.
I wound up going to a Presbyterian (of all places) college ministry when I arrived at University of Washington. While there I had a radical change of heart about how to approach the world. I had two major voices: one was from my pastor and the other was my professors in my Comparative Religion major at a public university. My pastor, Mike Gaffney, was always going to Genesis 12 to talk about how we were supposed to be a blessing to culture, yet at first I couldn’t understand how that worked if we were always making sure to tell people that we don’t celebrate Halloween because it’s “the devil’s day.” As my professors started pointing me to read historical theology I realized that not only was my previous dispensational premillenial theology a chronologically new view, but it was a view that was not prone to transform culture as it was instead more oriented to shy away from culture. Richard Niebuhr describes the ethics of the “Christ against culture” group as being predominated by the ethic of holiness - or separatedness for the Gospel (Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, xliv). This makes sense if we are to understand ourselves as the new Israel because we are replacing them, yet biblically the model doesn’t seem to be a perfect fit as we are instead admonished to be “in the world, but not of it.” (John 17:15-18).
As I started looking more into the idea that as Christians we should be salt, I realized that this metaphor might mean that we are not simply salty as an act of preservation to stem rot or decay, but perhaps instead we should be salt in the world to add flavor (Matthew 5:13). This overarching narrative that culture is hopelessly rotting simply no longer held the same sway to me biblically. Instead I started to read and listen to leaders from today and the past that were culture changers. People like Jonathan Edwards and Samuel Hopkins, people like Tim Keller, but that is just the beginning. During my studies in urban planning I was able to write great papers on Augustine as well as Calvin’s Geneva. This view that we are not so much establishing a new society, but instead transforming society does seem to be a departure from Israel’s model, and I believe it is. This is one of the areas in which we see that Genesis 12 is simply setting the stage for God’s long term plan for His people of blessing. It is not a blessing from the outside, but a blessing from within.
This idea that we are to transform culture might reach its culmination in Paul’s interaction at the Areopagus in Acts 17. In Acts 17 we see Paul do something that should shock us as we read from a straight Hebraic perspective in which Paul is willing to tell the Greeks that they have some measure of truth in their own underlying worldview - but it was incomplete and used to point to the greater truth of the God that has made Himself fully known in Jesus Christ.
If I didn’t think that we should transform culture I would be stuck. I am far too rigid in my understanding of our call toward holiness to essentially assimilate the church to culture, yet I have a hard time reconciling the ministry of Jesus with the ethic of Christ against Culture as Jesus seems to consistently step into situations that are more transformative than combative. While the being “against culture” makes sense in its continued emphasis to holiness, looking at the miracles of Jesus we see the compassion of Christ at times trumping ritual cleanliness laws. He touched a woman that had been bleeding for 12 years in Luke 8, He talks with a promiscuous Samaritan woman at a well and she even tries to tell Him that He probably shouldn’t do this in John 4.
As I read through Scripture I see again and again that God is transforming the culture. He has been doing this from the beginning by taking cultural idols in Genesis and crushing them - he took on primogeniture by elevating Abel over Cain, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his brothers. He took on polygamy by showing how poorly it turns out for all parties involved, from Hagar and Sarah to the sister-wives Leah and Rachel. God breaks down the cultural expectation of slavery by elevating Hagar - and these three examples of God transforming culture by speaking into it occur only in the first book of the Bible. The list could go on and on.
I'd love to hear your thoughts so feel free to add something to the comments below or come and talk to me at church about this some Sunday. - Asher