Speaking the Truth (about science) in Love - and Focus on the Family’s Truth Project

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:14-16)

Christian Unity
I really appreciate Ephesians chapter 4 where Paul admonishes believers to be unified in Christ, to be at peace with one another, and to treat each other with gentleness, love, and respect. We need to recognize both our individual gifts (eg. 1 Cor 12) and our individual frailties so that we can work to our common goal. This attitude will not only help us grow closer to Christ, but will also help us attract others to the family of God.

Truth
But being unified in love does not imply an anything-goes acceptance. Part of being family is helping each other mature in the faith, and this includes “speaking the truth in love”. Our faith is in Jesus Christ who is the “way, the truth, and the life”; articulating this truth and defending this truth (1 Pet 3:15-17) is part of our calling. Sometimes we need to discuss with, ask questions of, and even confront, our brothers and sisters in Christ. Truth is important.

Truth in Science
So what about truth in science? For many years the majority of evangelicals have loudly and vigorously opposed the theory of evolution, even though the evidence for common descent is now almost scientifically incontestable. So it is probably time for those of us that have travelled this journey of faith / science reconciliation to speak the truth in love. As Mark Noll notes, the methods of evangelical engagement with science have become “intellectually, biblically, theologically, apologetically, and spiritually” damaging.

Discussing the issues of Origins in the Church
As we discussed here almost two years ago, there are times to confront, times to dialogue, and times to remain silent on the topic of origins. However, as I admitted then (as still admit now) determining when to confront, when to dialogue and when to remain silent is notoriously difficult.

On a personal level, I think Bethany offers some good advice in this comment from her post last week. When discussing origins with other Christians, we should take into account whether the setting is appropriate, whether the science / faith issue has pastoral implications for the person involved (ie. We could do more harm than good), and maybe most importantly, whether we have the “relational currency” to challenge our Christian friend.

Focus on the Family’s “Truth” Project and Preaching Untruths in the Church
Focus on the Family is promoting their “Truth Project” to churches and small groups. A quick look at the lesson overview shows that, ironically, the Truth Project doesn’t seem to put much stock in truth when it comes to science (see lesson 5). For example, this lesson states that “Darwinian theory transforms science from the honest investigation of nature into a vehicle for propagating a godless philosophy”. Completely untrue.

Then later it is stated that:

A careful examination of molecular biology and the fossil record demonstrates that evolution is not a "proven fact."

This might be technically defensible depending how badly one defined “evolution” and “proven”, but at the very minimum this is (maybe unintentionally) deceptive; hardly a harbinger for expecting much truth from the actual lessons.

Confronting Anti-evolution in the Church
Given what has been said above, I would like to propose a guideline for when we as ECs should NOT remain silent. When either 1) a Christian organization in which we participate or 2) our local Church officially promote anti-evolutionary views, I believe that we must speak up. In this instance, we must “speak the truth in love” and provide the message that:

a) the scientific evidence for common descent is massive
b) the acceptance of biological evolution is compatible with an evangelical expression of the Christian faith

For us to remain silent in these circumstances would be a disservice to the gospel. It would be unloving to our brothers and sisters who are being told that their faith rests on a specific view of science that is demonstrably false.

Dennis Venema’s response to the Truth Project
Dennis Venema is currently in this exact situation – and is speaking up. As he outlined in this comment last week, the Truth Project is being taught at his church. As a geneticist, he is particularly qualified to point out where scientific falsehoods are being promoted. Dennis offered to provide an official response for his church but was turned down. In lieu of that, he gave a talk to some interested church members in a private home.

I encourage my readers to check out Dennis’s talk entitled "Can an evangelical Christian accept evolution?" (the video is broken into 12 parts). As he indicated, this talk for his fellow church members is based on his "Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?" lecture (audio and slides) at the ASA conference this summer, but this more intimate discussion is targeted at a non-specialist audience.

I thought Dennis's presentation to his church friends was excellent; I believe it will be particularly helpful for someone new to this dialogue. And it was definitely provided in a spirit of speaking the truth in love. Hopefully this will encourage the rest of us to follow suit.

Ancient Jewish Politics, Modern Science, and the Kingdom of God

1st century Judaism was a cauldron of resentment and frustration. Although the Jews had returned to their homeland centuries earlier, at the dawn of Jesus’ ministry they were still in political exile chaffing under foreign rule. Their Creator God had promised to bring justice and peace to his world, but the fulfillment of that promise seemed far off. How long would it take for God’s kingdom to be restored? Why did God continue to delay his coming justice? More importantly, how should God’s people respond to their humiliating political situation?

Ancient Jewish Approaches to Political Problems

N.T. Wright, in his lecture Jesus and the Kingdom of God (HT: Stephen Ranney), describes three different approaches to the Jewish predicament. First, there was the withdrawal or separatist option. This was the approach chosen by the Essenes. They resolved to separate themselves from the wicked world and to wait for God to act for Israel. There was no point in resisting the political problem or trying to accelerate the coming of the Kingdom: God would do what God would do, and he would do it in his own time.

Second, there was the compromise approach. This was the option advocated by Herod and others among the Jewish elite. The strategy here was to get along with the Romans as best one could, and shape the world to suit the needs of oneself. Hopefully God would ultimately validate the approach.

Finally, there was the Zealot option. For the Zealots, armed struggle was answer. To help God usher in his Kingdom on earth, they would fight a holy war. The Kingdom would come to fruition by the spilling of Roman blood.

As Wright explains, Jesus rejected all of these approaches. Where the Essenes withdrew from the world, Jesus immersed himself in it. Where the compromisers ignored the faith of the past, Jesus insisted on recovering an authentic Jewish faith. Where the Zealots spoke and acted in violence (often resorting to mere banditry), Jesus preached love and compassion to all.

Modern Christian Approaches to Modern Scientific Problems

Sometimes Christian approaches to modern scientific problems mirror ancient Jewish approaches to political problems. Many Christians avoid the evidence of modern science and its implications. These Christians conclude that the evil they perceive in the modern scientific community cannot be redeemed and so must be ignored. Like the Essenes, these Christians ignore Jesus' call to be salt and light.

Others accept the “gospel” of modern science at the expense of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Central doctrines like the resurrection are disposed of since they do not jive with a modern view of reality. Like the Herodians, there is peace in the kingdom (at least for those who have bowed to Caesar), but it is not God’s kingdom.

Finally, like the Zealots in ancient Palestine, some modern Christians have sworn to fight “Big Science” which, they say, promotes a religion of materialism. If this fight gets nasty, so be it. The war must be won. Let’s not worry about collateral damage or the morality of our tactics.

A Better Approach to Modern Science

How should we approach modern science? It is of course far easier to identify bad approaches than good ones. For example, the early 20th century fundamentalist withdrawal from modern culture in general, and modern science in particular, was disastrous for Evangelicalism. Others have promoted solutions to the science-faith debate by removing all hints of Christian orthodoxy from the faith side of the equation. (Check out the resources on Thank God for Evolution, particularly the essay "Evolutionary Christianity", for an example of this). Finally, just like 1st century Zealotry was disastrous for Judaism, I believe that much of the ID movement’s aggressive fight against “Big Science” will prove to be bad for Christianity. This, and not so much the questionable science and theology of ID, is why I am appalled that Evangelicals continue to promote the movie Expelled and blogs like uncommondescent as helpful to our Christian witness.

I believe Jesus’ approach to 1st century politics may be instructive for modern Christians in the faith-science dialogue. We must immerse ourselves in the entire scientific enterprise, and not avoid scientific data that seems to challenge our assumptions. We must maintain an authentic Christianity, an orthodox Christianity, even while we grapple with the implications of modern scientific evidence. And we must resist the temptation to view our apologetics as an arms race.

Old assumptions and expectations of how God’s creation works are being challenged. But the result of these overturned expectations may be much better than we think. The Kingdom of God that Jesus preached, and ultimately ushered in through his death and resurrection, was not what 1st century Judaism expected either. But its character was so much better than anyone could have possibly imagined.

A Reasonable Faith

In his current post on choosing between brains and belief, John Stackhouse emphasizes that faith is a gift from God – it is not something that can be accessed by reason alone. So Dawkins and other “new atheists” are correct in stating Christianity is not reasonable if “reasonable” includes only data inferred from “empirical data or self-evident propositions”.

There simply are no chains of inference that can get you from the idea of God-in-general to God-as-Trinity. There are no demonstrative proofs for the contention that Jesus of Nazareth is God Incarnate and that his life, death, and resurrection are the basis for global salvation. There is no way to lead someone step by step from consideration of the Bible’s various qualities (archaeological vindication, literary power, moral persuasiveness, etc.) to the conviction that it is the very Word of God.

The earliest and most fundamental Christian confession was this: “Jesus is Lord.” And one of the Apostle Paul’s earliest and most influential letters makes the following bold epistemological claim: “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:3).

But this doesn’t imply that Christianity is “unreasonable” simply because it cannot be logically deduced from 1st principles or demonstrated in a science lab. On the contrary, I believe the Christian faith is a coherent framework for the historical, scientific, and philosophical data when viewed through the lenses of God's revelation through his written Word and the Word made flesh. Faith in Christ is not the house of cards that Dawkins seems to think, and cannot be compared to faith in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or leprechauns, or fairies. It is not, as he claims in The Selfish Gene (page 212), “Blind trust in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence”. Faith in the Living God starts with adequate evidence and is completed with consent of the will. As Stackhouse states:

Faith is always the exercise of trust beyond what we think we know, beyond what we think we’re sure of. Does that mean we have to choose between our brains and our beliefs? No, but it means we must not let our brains circumscribe our beliefs. We don’t understand electricity, but we use it. We don’t understand light (wave? particle? both? how does that work?), but we are glad for it. We don’t know everything about our business partners or surgeons or spouses, but we trust them with our livelihoods and lives.

More Thoughts on Apologetics

In my recent Evangelical apologetics post I should have pointed to John Stackhouse’s Humble Apologetics as an example to follow. His guideline to “First, Listen and Understand” needs to be heard by all who desire to engage in Christian apologetics.

Other related thoughts and conversations:

1. Stackhouse is also doing an interesting series on “Do you have to choose between your Brains or your Beliefs?”. See here for the first post.

2. David Heddle has a good post that addresses the oft-heard contention that a scientist cannot be a Christian without compartmentalizing. (He has an interesting challenge for anyone who makes this claim – check it out). And on cognitive dissonance he states:

Sometimes being a scientist and a Christian is described as cognitive dissonance. It is not. Cognitive dissonance is when I simultaneously hold two beliefs that I recognize as being in opposition or in tension. It is not holding to two beliefs that someone else thinks are in tension.

3. Cliff is back blogging at Outside-the-box. In his re-introduction to the blogsphere, he has some pertinent observations on the importance of honest Christian apologetics that do not ignore the findings of modern science. He shares some very personal thoughts on the whole theological enterprise and why it is important, including this:

And I think about how science informs my understandings of the Scriptures when I consider the coming train wreck for the church. When the powerful DNA evidence for common decent finally filters down to be understood by the masses it will not be a pretty sight. I feel desperately the need to alert my friends.

4. Gordon is mulling over a follow-up project to Beyond the Firmament. I’ve reviewed some portions of this – it should be good. Here is what Gordon says on why using anti-evolutionary arguments to back up the Christian gospel is a very, very dangerous thing:

While I struggle to honestly understand the difficult data, a fellow Christian will make a completely uninformed statement like, “don’t worry brother, there is no evidence for evolution; the theory is losing support in the scientific community and will soon be considered one of the stupidest ideas in the history of man.” It takes every ounce of civility within me to not unload. Some say we are in a culture war. If so, then we should fire every officer in our intelligence community. Why? Because while our sworn enemy is building tanks and helicopters, we are led to believe that paintball guns will repel their advance. And so we go about our business with a false sense of security.

And I believe the “If” in the above paragraph is critical. Not only are we fighting with inadequate weapons - we are often fighting the wrong war. Two millennia ago there was an itinerant preacher who also accused the religious leaders of confusing the cultural and spiritual wars.

5. There was an excellent recent discussion on the ASA listserv about how Christians should approach the pseudo-science often found in our community. Loren Haarsma kicked it off with this post. There are some very thoughtful responses, particularly those by Stephen Matheson and David Opderbeck who occasionally comment here on my blog. To follow the conversation, simply follow the “Next Thread” link from the original post. My post from last September entitled Dialogue, Debate, Silence, or Confrontation: How should we approach the topic of evolution? is also related to this discussion.

The Sad State of Evangelical Apologetics

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

1 Peter 3:15

Many times I feel like apologizing for what passes as Evangelical apologetics. Providing a “reason for the hope that we have” certainly includes a rationale for the reasonableness of the Christian Faith. However, we should never for a moment deceive ourselves into thinking that faith in the Incarnate Christ is primarily about “reasonableness”. Neither the Christian faith nor God’s existence will ever be proven mathematically, no matter how elegantly Godel summarized Anslem. The coherence of the Christian faith should certainly be shared with others (noting particularly Peter’s qualification above that it be done with gentleness and respect), but it should not and cannot be reduced to a set of rationalist axioms.

Proof-Seeking Apologetics is a Dangerous Methodology

David Opderbeck has an excellent post comparing the proof-seeking apologetics so often seen in the Evangelical movement, and a more responsible, reliable, and credible approach to Christian apologetics. Responding to the statement that “if the church wants to keep the younger generation, it needs to stress evidence and proof”, David states:

I can’t help but feel a little ill for young people expecting to find “evidence and proof” of a proposition such as “the Bible doesn’t contain any mistakes.” I’m sure folks like Strobel, Geisler and McDowell make some good arguments in support of faith. However, the hyper-rationalist, “provide evidence and proof that the Bible doesn’t contain any mistakes” school of apologetics is not only wrong, it’s harmful.

I couldn’t agree more. As an early teen I sat through a steady diet of Josh McDowell films that defended various Christian faith claims. The basic message seemed to be that anyone brighter than a toad would immediately put their faith in Christ if they were presented with the facts. Although my grasp of probability was relatively limited, I was troubled by McDowell’s “creative” use of statistics to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah. Although this dubious methodology did not lead to a rejection of the faith for me personally, it certainly led me to question some of the very conclusions McDowell was defending. I am concerned that there are others whose faith will not remain intact when they are exposed to this Evangelical proof-centric PR campaign. As David states, it can:

“ultimately undermine the faith of anyone who takes the time to seriously investigate many of the difficult issues involved in understanding various parts of the Bible”.

Defending the Wrong Gospel

Dubious methods are not the only harmful aspect of Evangelical apologetics; sometimes the conclusions being promoted are also dangerous. J. P. Moreland, a prolific Evangelical writer, theologian and philosopher, was recently asked by Christianity Today to identify the top 5 books on Christian Apologetics. One of the five he chose was Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells which claims that:

“many of the most famous “Icons of Evolution” –including Darwin’s “Tree of Life,” finches from the Galapagos Islands, and embryos that look remarkably similar – are based on outdated research and sloppy logic”.

The perplexing aspect of Moreland’s choice is that Well’s treatise is primarily (solely?) about scientific ideas, not Christian thought. Leaving aside the book’s central claims (see Icon of Obfuscation for a thorough critique) I cannot understand how Moreland justifies including it in the category of Christian Apologetics, let alone identifying it as a “Top 5 pick”? What in the world does a scientific theory have to do with the redeeming work of Christ through his incarnation, death, and resurrection? An attack on evolution or any other scientific theory (or for that matter a defense of evolution or any other scientific theory) may be an interesting scientific argument, it may even be a good argument, but if it doesn’t interact with Christian theology or faith, it can hardly be categorized as “Christian Apologetics”. (Disclaimer: I have not read the entire book, just snippets that are available online. I have read articles about the book - both pro & con - and have also perused the table of contents and index. If there is any interaction with Christian theology, it certainly seems well hidden. I would appreciate if someone can confirm whether or not Wells includes any discussion of Christianity).

Even if Wells had discussed Christian theology, I still believe it would be a serious mistake for Moreland to highlight it as a work of Christian apologetics. The implication is that the rejection of evolution is an important aspect of the gospel, and that the gospel stands or falls on the “truth” of evolution. Thus the gospel of Christ is shackled to a specific scientific theory (or more accurately, a rejection of a specific scientific theory). Maybe Moreland and other Christian anti-evolutionists should seriously consider whether Paul’s warning in Galations 1:6-9 is relevant to the message they are promoting.

Evangelical or Moonie Apologetics?

Given that Christianity Today bills itself as the “Magazine of Evangelical Conviction”, it is particularly galling that Wells book was tabbed as a “Top 5 pick” on Christian Apologetics. Wells is a member of the Unification Church led by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and cannot be considered an orthodox Christian by any stretch of the imagination, let alone an Evangelical. He has published apologetics for Moon’s church and this particularly unorthodox view of the relationship between marriage and the Fall. Is this the type of representative that Evangelicals look to for a defense of their faith? What is next for inclusion in Evangelical Christian Apologetics? How about something written by Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology? Why not add some Rastafarian apologetics for balance?

Credible and Responsible Apologetics

For Evangelicals really interested in credible apologetics, I suspect that David’s suggestions at the end of his post are a much better place to start than the list provided by Moreland. It includes some fine books by Allister McGrath, one of the best Evangelical writers contributing to the Science / Faith dialogue. And Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation, a personal favorite of mine, is an excellent example of how sound Evangelical scholarship should grapple with the biblical, scientific and historic evidence.

The conclusion of David’s post is also a fitting conclusion to mine.

Some evidential apologetic arguments can provide support for faith, and we are right to stress the general trustworthiness of the Gospels and the circumstantial evidence that support our proclamation that “Jesus is Risen.” But true knowledge, and true faith, do not come from forced external rationalizations. True knowledge and true faith come from relationship.

Well said. Thankfully a relationship with the Creator is not limited to those who wish to set limits on how the Creator creates.

Addendum: After I finished writing this post I noticed that David published a second post on apologetics called Postmodern Apologetics: a Person, not a Proposition. I highly recommend reading this as well.