What do questions of origin have to do with who we are in the world?

If God created humanity as responsible adults to care for an adult earth, filled with adult plants and animals, who are self-perpetuating through sexual or asexual reproduction, what should be our approach to the data being interpreted by science*?

In last Monday's post, I dipped my toe a bit deeper in the evolution-creation pond that I had planned. With this post, I dip a bit further, this time leaning toward the theological end.

---

I do not dispute the data; rather, I believe both scientific and theological knowledge must be applied to the data. Our knowledge of the universe since the Scientific Revolution has increased dramatically, as mentioned by Andrew B in his comment: "our knowledge of the universe has been exploding through application of the scientific method, logic, reasoning and mathematics." God has placed us in this world and has given us minds that are naturally curious and that seek to reason things out. These great gifts must not be cast aside, but must be leveraged.

Science has told and will continue to tell us much about our world and ourselves, but scientific knowledge cannot tell us the entire story, for the origin of humanity, the earth, and all living things is beyond our experimental reach. We can also study what is happening now. We can study the circumstantial evidence left by what has happened in the past. These provide a wealth of information, but an eyewitness report is lacking in the scientific data.

If the Bible is inspired by God, then believe Genesis 1-2 provides such an eyewitness account. If it is an eyewitness account, then theological knowledge must be applied to questions of origin. This is not to say that scientific knowledge is discounted; rather, theology must have a place at the table, for these questions have distinct theological/philosophical components.

As it stands, at least from my tiny corner of the world, it seems the scientists and the theologians are having a difficult time at the round table. To quote Francis S. Collins,

The shrill voices at the extremes of this debate have had the microphone for too long. Although they will no doubt continue to rail against each other, the rest of us should find ways to bring together scientists who are open to spiritual truths, theologians who are ready to embrace scientific findings about the universe, and pastors who know the real concerns and needs of their flocks. Together, in a loving and worshipful attitude, we could formulate a new and wondrous natural theology ("A New Theology of Celebration," Search Magazine).

There is much heat in this discussion--too much heat (a small part of which I have cast about). But to quote Collins again, "If we make a serious and prayerful attempt to do this together, perhaps in a few years this new “celebration theology” could eliminate the conflict between science and faith."

Where do we go from here?

As God's viceroys on earth, an interpretation of the available data must conform to our care for and rule over creation. As God's creation, our interpretation of the data must keep in mind his divinity and power; it must serve to increase our understanding not only of the universe, but of its Creator.

Therefore,

I issue a call is to scientists who are Christian: have the courage to take off the canopy when it is academically feasible, even if it is only feasible in your own mind. Look at the available data and ask questions such as these,

• Since God is, how should I interpret these data?
• If God created by declaration, how would I interpret these data?

Interpretation is a greater issue than the data. If God created by declaration, then God could have created an adult universe that was sculpted with the characteristics of a universe that had developed over time. If God created by declaration, then he could have created human, animal, and plant kinds that the form the bases of all the species in existence today.

I issue a call is to theologians and pastors: have the courage to move from a discussion of the data to a discussion of its meaning, asking questions such as,

• If the earth appears millions of years old and yet was created by God a much shorter time ago, then what is the theological significance of his creating an adult universe?
• What is the theological significance of the built-in process of adaption and change that we see in the natural world?
  

Rather than wasting time refuting data, invest time interpreting the data and discussing theological significance.

We are followers of Jesus, but this designation is not to be relegated to Sunday morning rituals or private moments of prayer and Bible reading. We are his followers in this place and at this time. Let us be wholly engaged with God, each other, and his creation.

*NOTE: I am specifically refuting science that does not reference God, meaning science that interprets the available data according to materialistic assumptions.

Next week: Refining My Understanding: Origin of Variation, Origin of Life, and Origin of Matter

===
Further Reading
Reliability, Inerrancy, and the Like
Inspiration of the Bible (wikipedia)
Genesis 1-2

---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Why I do not believe in macro-evolution

• Macro-evolution does not adequately account for genetic differences among species. Different species have very different DNA coding and the assumption that a fish became a lizard does not seem tenable. The plethora of DNA evolution theories testifies to the validity of the issue. Such complex and specific changes in DNA seem more magical than anything theology has come up with.
• Atheistic macro-evolution does not adequately account for the impossibility of spontaneous generation . How did the primordial ooze become life? Scientists have run laboratory experiments in which they "create" amino acids from some ooze, but these very experiments provide evidence for intelligent design, for the scientists are the intelligent designers of the newly created amino acids.
• If the Scripture is an accurate record of God's ways with his people and his creation, then our perceived timeline should not start at zero. Atheistic macro-evolutionists claim that Scripture does not make adequate sense of the data for the data show that the earth is millions of years old. I would offer that if we were able to travel back in time, to the garden and do tests on Adam and Eve, we would find that the tests "proved" them to be in their mid-twenties, despite the fact that they were mere days/hours old. Just as God created adult humans, animals, and plants, he also created an adult earth, stars, and universe. I happen to be a crazy young-earther , but I hold that with very open hands. I hold this position because I believe it makes the best sense of the biblical and scientific data. If one is a theist and believes God has the capacity to create, then frankly it makes no sense for that same person to discount God's capacity to create.
• Theologically, the presence of human death is directly connected to the entrance of sin. If death only entered after the entrance of sin, then it is impossible for there to have been death before that. Without death and a succession of generations, there is no way for human evolution to have occurred. Therefore, if one is to take Genesis seriously and not merely literally, then, however else micro-evolution fits into the picture, macro-evolution is theologically impossible.
  

In sum, these scientific and theological reasons compel me to reject macro-evolution and support intelligent design, for ID makes the best sense of the scientific and theological data. In addition, I hold that a young earth is both theologically and scientifically possible. I believe it is even likely, but I am unwilling to die on that hill.

What do you say?

===
Next week: What does this have to do with Who in the World Are We?
---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

sketchpad Communal Formation and Disciple Making as Systems

Update: Feb 4, 2009 (Thanks to input from Jeff, Prib, and Plock)

Initial version

Changes

• "discipleship" merged into "Disciples in Training"
• "conversion" --> "Trusting to repentance"
• corrected direction of disciplers-to-Disciples in Training influence arrow

Initial version

Changes

• added "perceived walk" and "discrepancy"
• changed "functioning body" to "functioning members" and made "APEPT" a subset
• Not knowing how to depict the Head, I created an all encompassing footnote.
• changed title to "Disciples in Training"
• Added Ephesians 4 references
  

yellow box = stock
yellow arrow = flow
black arrow = influence
"B" = balancing feedback loop
"R" = reinforcing feedback loop


Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Identity of Church: by divine definition or human decision?

Inputs: Horrell, Viola, Isaiah 24-27, Sunday sermon 1/11

Who we are is a defined thing and the definition (laid down in the apostolic tradition comprised of the normative beliefs and practices in the New Testament) cannot be changed by our decision. It is not culturally conditioned; who we are does not change across history, country, or language. The particular suit of clothes might change with time and culture, but our identity, expressed in normative beliefs and practices, is definitional. If we step outside of that definition, we become something other than who we are. One of the key ideas, picked up by both Horrell and Viola, is the notion of communality: that God designed us to be a people, not a collection of individuals, but a gathering around a person for whose work we structure ourselves. We do his work, not our work. He comes first.

The institutional church has gotten off track by forgetting who we are and who he is. It may well be that our doctrine is in good order. It may well be that our behavior conforms to biblical morality. But if we do not express Christ and who we are in Christ, then we are not church. The uncomfortable conclusion is that many organizations, quite certain they are churches, are actually something altogether different; they are religious organizations, but they are not churches.

What do we do with that once we know the truth?




Related Posts
Being the Loyal Opposition in the Institutional Church
Among the Loyal Dissatisfied



Key Ideas from the week:

• Christ-centered
• part of the one people of God, distinct from but not divided from Israel
• shaped as specifically Christian by belief and practice
• being dancers, creating on a sure theme, rather than docents, merely relating the theme and its history

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

Are We Sacrificing the Mission of the Church for the Missions of Her Members?

As a body, the Church performs the work of her Head, receiving his instruction and being his presence in the world. Maturation occurs as the parts fulfill their proper functions in the presence of proper and adequate nutrition. Work and Word are both necessary for health and growth.

As a community, the Church reflects the unity and diversity of God in the unity and diversity of her internal relations. Maturation occurs as she learns and works in the context of relationship. The parts must function together and for one another in order that the growth, which flows only from Christ, might occur.

As a storyteller, the Church tells the story of God’s grace and justice. It is a story of grace, for eternal deliverance and presence are gifts paid for by God alone. It is a story of justice, for those who reject these gifts by failing to trust the Giver will not be delivered and will not live in his presence. The will not do this forever. Maturation occurs as the members hear God’s story and respond by being and doing that story among themselves before the eyes of the world.

---

I am finding a decided inwardness arise in my research into the identity, function, and maturation of the Church in the world. While I believe that the Church must be salt and light, I am not finding that individual believers are to be so intentionally. Rather, individual believers function for the good of the body and for the glory of the Lord.

Perhaps focus on the missional function of individual believers has actually reduced the missional influence of the Church. Perhaps refocusing our efforts on body connections and properly functioning persons will produce the missional influence we so desperately need.

• What does it look like to focus on the growth and health of the body for the purpose of communal work, reflection, and storytelling in the world?
• What would we add to our programs?
• What would we remove?
• What would we change?

Related Site: Missional Tribe

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology missional

skethpad--CHURCH: THEME and VARIATIONS

• We are the community of holy ones, called to be holy in the world for Christ's sake and to mature through cooperation with the Holy Spirit and remaining in Christ.
• We are in process, called to show what it means/looks like to be fit for God's presence and to mature through behaving as ones being made fit.
• We are warriors, called to fight Christ's battle against all forms of evil and to mature through training in discernment, declaration, advocacy/intercession, and emergency care.
• We are heralds, called to introduce God's order and to mature through knowledge, practice, and graciousness.
• We are dancers, called to show that submission to God's ways is freedom and to mature through the disciplines and through "loving God and doing as we please."
• We are scholars, called to know truth deeply and behave accordingly and to mature through holistic study and integrative education.
• We are followers, called to reveal God's fullness in our life together and to mature through increasing knowledge of who God is and through submitting our behavior to that knowledge.
• We are in the world but not of it, called to point to Christ in his incarnate fullness and to mature through intellectual, relational, and personal knowledge of him.
  

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

sketchpad—FOUR-WAY BIBLE READING FOR SPIRITUAL GROWTH

The Church is the Body of Christ; the individual members belong to that Body only by virtue of their connection to Christ. He alone is the founder of our faith; he alone is the completer (Heb 12). The Body, therefore, is not a mere collection, as if a part might be removed without consequence. Each person, each connection, each function, each purpose makes the Body what it ought to be. Similarly, persons, connections, functions, and purposes not inherent to the Body contaminate the system and make it what it ought not to be.

As the Body, the church functions at the communal and individual levels. In addition to saving grace (Eph 2:8-10), Christ measures out functional grace (Eph 4:7), equipping each member to serve the local and global church. Persons practice grace so that the church might mature and expand. The Body practices grace that is greater than the sum of its parts; a properly functioning church will have influence beyond what is logical from member’s participation.

How does this maturation take place in the world? An important step is to take a clear, focused look at Jesus and confess that we, as his Body, are not behaving in accordance with our identity in him. Only then, after knowing where we are and where we ought to be, can we plan and begin our journey. If the church is broken, the problem is not external; the problem is in the church itself.

A major internal contributor is the unbalanced, haphazard way many persons receive biblical input. Too may subsist on pre-chewed pablum. Too many read only emotionally. Too many read only intellectually. If growth results from knowing and speaking truth in the context of love, then adequate biblical input is necessary for life and growth.

This biblical input must go beyond mere hearing, mere emotions, or mere intellect. Each person, each community must take responsibility. The following matrix (developed after skimming Life with God by Richard Foster) offers some suggestions.



I realize some may cast doubt on my emphasizing biblical input, placing great importance on spiritual experiences. Such experiences can be important; they can also be false. Others will emphasize listening to the Spirit. This is, of course, crucial and necessary. But to both I must ask, How do you know the experiences or the voices are from God? One cannot merely say, I just know, for we all have personal and cultural filters that skew our perceptions. The only sure way to know God’s voice is to listen to him in community as we gather to read the Word with head and heart, going deeply into smaller portions and gaining breadth in larger chunks.

Relevant Readings and Writings this Past Week
blog post: Pursued by and Dwelling in God
book: Biology of Human Starvation
blog post: Blitz the Me-Prayer
Scripture: Daniel 9, Psalm 23, Psalm 119:105-112
book introduction: Thinking in Systems
blog post: By Guidance and Intention
ideas in blog posts: monkey bars

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology

sketchpad...LEAKING TRUTH

ponderings from the Moleskine, November '08

The truth leaked from our life together in Christ is the necessary precursor to our proclamation of God’s worth.

Knowing begins in relationship with God.

• The triune Creator, Covenant-Maker is foundational.
• Our fear of and love for God develops wisdom: truth lived well in the world.

Knowing grows in relationship with others.

• Community provides the training and correction needed for growth in truth.
• Working and playing alongside our brothers and sisters adds what is missing in our knowledge and removes what is false.

Relational knowing leaks truth in the world.

• The methods of relational knowing show that God’s truth is both conceptual and relational.
• Modeling relational knowing before the world bypasses intellectual and emotional barriers, though resistance and acceptance remain matters of volition.

Tag(s): ecclesiology church christian theology