Update March 13, 2010: Since this post was published almost 3 years ago, there have been a few guest-posts on this site that provide much more detailed thoughts on the CRC and evolution.
I’d like to throw out a few (maybe somewhat random) thoughts on the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and evolution.
- It is my perception that those with CRC upbringings find the topic of evolution less threatening to their faith. There is often tension, but not nearly as significant as the tension in Evangelicals with other backgrounds. I believe the reason for this is that the CRC has virtually no ties to the American Fundamentalist controversies in the early 20th century. Maybe someone who knows more about CRC history can comment.
- It is also my perception that a significant number of CRC academics are involved in the evolution / faith discussion. However, the CRC still officially rejects evolution. This was the decision of the 1991 CRC Synod. Overtures to have this changed have been rejected. The church’s official position on creation states “The clear teaching of Scripture and the confessions rules out holding views that support the reality of evolutionary forebears of the human race”. See: http://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_creation.cfm.
- Some really great science / faith resources can be found on Loren Haarsma’s (Physics Prof at Calvin College) web page at: http://www.calvin.edu/~lhaarsma/scifaith.html
6 comments:
Steve,
As a former member of the CRC, I can offer some comments that might be helpful. Hopefully some others with CRC backgrounds will either confirm or correct these comments. (I’m sure you are related to a few people who fall into this category.) ;)
First, you should have continued your quotation of the CRC position on evolution to include one additional sentence. “But further investigation or discussion regarding the origin of humanity should not be limited.” The main issue the CRC has with evolution is “the origin of humanity”. Many CRC members accept evolution up to the point of the creation of humans – we were handcrafted by God in His image, not morphed out of apes. For those that take the all or nothing approach, this means rejecting all of evolution. I personally like the idea that God formed us with His own hands, in a completely unique and separate process from the rest of life. I also like the idea that He used an evolutionary process to create all other life forms, because that’s how I would have done it.
My second comment refers to the same quote – the CRC accepts, and even encourages “further investigation or discussion” on this topic. To understand this better, you need to understand the R in CRC – Reformed. The origin of the CRC points to two main people, Martin Luther and John Calvin. To be very brief, Luther returned the Bible to the people and gave us the opportunity to read it for ourselves and challenge church leaders on what they would like us to believe. Calvin reminded us that God is sovereign – the world is His and He is still in control – and God permeates every aspect of our lives, including science and technology. This thinking led the CRC to set up their own schools including colleges and universities, where science and technology can be studied from a “reformed” perspective. The CRC encourages investigation and discussion on topics like evolution, stem cell research, the origin of the universe, and same sex marriage, to name a few.
You are correct that the CRC has no ties to the Fundamentalists. It originated in the Netherlands and spread to North America completely on its own. Some maintain this distinctiveness to the point where they are offended if you call them evangelical. I like to think that the reformed churches and evangelical churches have evolved ;) to the point where they are almost indistinguishable. This is partly why I am a “former” member of the CRC, and now belong to an evangelical church. Our core beliefs and core values are the same, so it wasn’t a big leap for me to join a different denomination. Why I made the leap is a story for another day.
Jac
1. On the quotation, that's a good point - maybe I should have been more careful & included the additional part of the quote. One thing I definitely like about the reformed ethos (from my understanding) is that there is always opportunity for more discussion. (But I know some from a reformed background are frustrated with this tendency :-) ).
2. Another good point on the distinction between general evolutionary theory vs. human evolution. That is definitely the crux of the matter for many Christians. Personally, you start tying yourself into very uncomfortable intellectual knots by attempting to demarcate between human and non-human (eg. Were Neanderthals real humans? If we were able use DNA extraction to create a clone Neanderthal, would it have the image of God? Would you feel comfortable putting it in a zoo? Would you eat it? There was a discussion on this on the ASA mailing list awhile back.) But then again, some of my own interpretive decisions have their own uncomfortable intellectual knots.
3. On handcrafting by God or morphed from apes: Finally! Something we can disagree on! Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t it be both? Psalm 139 talks about God “knitting us together in our mothers womb”. We now have a much better understanding of fetal development but does this mean the Psalmist was wrong (ie. God doesn’t knit us together)? Personally, I don’t think so. This really comes down to how we understand divine action. This and the origin of sin issue are probably #1 and #2 on my “I still don’t get it” list.
4. On the ties of “Reformed Theology” to “Fundamentalism”, I actually think there are huge ties. The Presbyterians were probably the intellectual leaders of the Evangelical movement in the 19th century, and they defined the theory of “inerrant scripture” that played such an important role in the Fundamentalist controversy. (To be fair, I strongly believe that these reformed theologians would now be horrified to see how “inerrancy” is interpreted today). I think the distinction is more American culture and their version of reformed theology vs. continental reformed theology. This is just a very big hunch by me as I know very little of the development of reformed theology & the differences between this development in Europe and America.
Steve,
Don’t get too excited thinking we disagree. The handcrafting by God OR morphed from apes is the distinction made by the CRC, but not necessarily by me. Note that I said I like the "idea" that God formed us with His own hands. I didn’t say how that was done or what materials He started with, or how long it took. But re-reading my post, I can see how you could get the impression I was choosing handcrafting over morphing. The image of being “handcrafted” or “knit together” conveys to me something much more beautiful and caring than the impersonal concept of evolution. Again it is the idea and image, not the actual method that I am referring to. My position is that when God created us, He did something different, something unique, which resulted in us bearing His image. No other life form can claim that. Whether He started from scratch or morphed an ape or used some other method, something incredibly special happened when we were created. The image of being “handcrafted” by God, is to me, like a woodcarver selecting a choice piece of wood (maybe an ape) and lovingly carving it into an eagle (humans). You can look at the carved eagle and see it was originally a piece of wood, but you must acknowledge that the eagle is so much more beautiful than a piece of wood that the artist must have taken special care to create it. And when you compare the eagle carving to the rest of the woodcarver's collection, the eagle is by far the most complex, most detailed, and most beautiful, so you can't help but think the woodcarver gave it special attention and it holds a special place in his heart. Were the Neanderthals an interim stage of the “handcrafting” of humans? A work in progress? Unfinished humans? Maybe. At what point does the eagle carving stop being a chunk of wood and become an eagle? People watching from the sidelines would have different opinions (when you can tell it has wings, or when the eyes are done, or when you can see feathers, etc), but only the woodcarver can decide when it truly becomes an eagle. Genesis tells us that the first person to bear God’s image was Adam. So, was Adam a Neanderthal? There’s no way to be certain. Did he live 10,000 or 100,000 years ago? Does it matter? Not to me. Like the eagle carving, I don’t really care how it was made or how long it took, I’m content knowing that someone with much more skill that I can imagine took great care to make the eagle and it is beautiful.
I was probably a bit too strong when I said the CRC had no ties to Fundamentalists. I meant that the CRC originated in the Netherlands while the Fundamentalists originated in the US. Both can trace their roots back to Luther and the birth of the protestant church movement, but the CRC focused more on Calvin’s teachings and retained much of their Dutch distinctiveness when they came to North America. I don’t recall reading anything about the CRC interacting with Fundamentalists – in fact, I don’t recall reading about the CRC interacting very much with any other non-reformed denomination until recently (in the last 50 years).
I think we'll have to dialogue more to find clear point of disagreement.
Jac
I definitely like the metaphor of God as artist. Most of the stuff being written now is God as designer - which is ok in itself if you don't get carried away with it an exclude his roles as artist, parent, servent etc. Too much focus on "Design" can lead to a very sterile view of God. (And coming from a CS guy to an engineer you probably understand :-) )
What I think a lot of people lack is something that Jesus said you have to have a child like faith. God gives us this faith so we can believe His word The Bible, that is how he speaks to us . :)
What I think a lot of people lack is something that Jesus said you have to have a child like faith. God gives us this faith so we can believe His word The Bible, that is how he speaks to us . :)
Post a Comment