Teaching Evolution at Calvin College: A Personal Perspective

This is a guest-post by biologist Stephen Matheson, and is the second in a 2-part essay on the evolution controversy at Calvin College; view part 1 here. It is the seventh installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Stephen publishes the blog Quintessence of Dust which explores issues of science and faith.

In the previous post, I summarized the momentous conflict over evolution and creation that rocked Calvin College and the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) throughout the 1980's. By 1991, the dust had largely settled, although ongoing conflict regarding the roles of women in ecclesiastical office compounded the damage and led to significant departures of members and congregations from the CRC. Ten years later, in 2001, I joined the faculty. I offer here some thoughts and observations on the current situation at Calvin and in the denomination regarding biological evolution.

Harry Boonstra's history of Calvin College (Our School) was published in 2001, on the occasion of the college's 125th birthday, and a decade after the momentous synodical report on "Creation and Science." Before describing the episode, he provides some rationale for his decision to emphasize it, and here is one interesting claim:

...after the 1991 synodical report, "Creation and Science," there has been very little formal discussion on creation and evolution in either the CRC or Calvin College. Neither has there been, to my knowledge, an overview of this controversy. No doubt many of the participants were battle weary, but the questions require ongoing discussion.

That was seven years ago, and I haven't noticed "formal discussion" of evolution in the CRC since then, nor does it seem that the topic is being discussed more actively at Calvin than when I came in 2001. Most notably, it seems to me that the subject is not considered to be strongly controversial or dangerous. There was a small brouhaha in the student paper and on the faculty listserv in 2004, centered on comments by a faculty member that I and others found to be muddled and somewhat dismissive of evolutionary science, and there were tiny ripples of dissent when I and others agreed to participate in an "Origins Symposium" that included presentations by four Calvin faculty in juxtaposition with presentations by four YEC proponents. There have been some uncomfortable moments, and there are surely many on our faculty and staff who harbor doubts and suspicions regarding common ancestry. (This includes some who are fans of the old-earth creationism of Hugh Ross and colleagues at Reasons To Believe.) We still hear from disgruntled constituents, and some of them can be obnoxious. But there is no strong reason to expect a campus conflict centered on evolutionary biology.

On the positive side, some of my colleagues, most prominently Loren Haarsma, have contributed to discussions of evolution, creation and design, openly embracing evolutionary explanations. And Deb and Loren Haarsma (both of the physics and astronomy department) have recently published a book exploring origins from a Reformed perspective; published by the CRC itself, the book discusses human evolution without obvious equivocation. I am known as an outspoken advocate for common descent on and off campus, and have spoken publicly on the topic of evolution and explanation quite recently, at a large CRC church and in tandem with my friend and colleague in the philosophy department, Kelly Clark. My blog is well known to my colleagues, and one particularly successful entry (which deals explicitly with evolutionary biology) is featured in the current issue of Calvin's e-zine, Minds in the Making.

These observations indicate that the Calvin College of today is a safe place for a Christian biologist who is excited about the explanatory power of common descent. But I'm not sure they communicate just how far the college seems to have come. So let me close with a personal account that should make it very clear that academic freedom at Calvin, with respect to evolutionary theory, is quite strong.

A few months ago, I went before the Calvin College Board of Trustees to be interviewed for reappointment with tenure. The interview went very well, and I was recommended for tenure. We discussed several interesting topics, one of which was my emphasis on God's sovereignty regarding his creation. My "statement on the integration of faith and learning" outlines my contention that the typical creationist notion of the Fall – a cataclysm so radical that it utterly ruptures the fabric of creation and makes the world before the Fall completely incomprehensible – is an unacceptable underestimation of God's sovereignty over the cosmos. From there, we turned to questions about the Fall itself, and I described my position quite bluntly: I have no doubt about human common ancestry with other animals, but I also recognize that this creates difficult questions about the nature of the Fall, and I look forward to further work (by scholars more qualified than I am) on this problem. After a time, I was asked to step out of the room while the group deliberated. In the hallway, I ran into the president of the college, Gaylen Byker, and we were soon having an engrossing and amiable chat about human animal ancestry (with animal welfare and veganism as a backdrop). Unfortunately, we were interrupted by the Trustees, who summoned me back into the room to affirm my work as a Calvin College professor and to warmly congratulate me on being recommended for tenure.

I hope the point of all this is obvious: the leaders of Calvin College may well have preferences regarding the amount and timing of discussions of common descent, and perhaps the fundraisers would love it if we never brought it up at all. But they have never expressed any opposition of any kind to anything I have ever said or written about evolution.

There is much more that could be said, but we'll save it for comments and discussion. But I would be remiss if I didn't end with a tribute to Davis Young, Clarence Menninga, and Howard Van Till, not just for writing a book that changed my life but for courageously paying a price that purchased the blessings I now enjoy at Calvin College. Dave...Clarence...Howard... thank you.

The Evolution Controversy at Calvin College: Historical Perspective

This is a guest-post by biologist Stephen Matheson, and is the sixth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Stephen publishes the blog Quintessence of Dust which explores issues of science and faith.

At Calvin College, we describe our institution as "a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity." Our college is owned by – and is an official ministry of – the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). Like all pastors and officers of the CRC, Calvin faculty are required to formally affirm three Reformed "forms of unity": the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. Furthermore, Calvin faculty are required to attend a Reformed church, choosing from a list that excludes prominent Reformed denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), such that only the CRC and its sister denomination, the Reformed Church in America (RCA), are workable choices.

The point of the foregoing is this: Calvin College is an outgrowth of the CRC, an ethnically Dutch Reformed denomination with some distinctive characteristics. (One of those characteristics is a tendency toward deliberate action and careful documentation of such action, as we'll see below.) And so, when considering the history of controversy over evolutionary science at Calvin, it is important to start with the CRC.

Evolution and the CRC

The CRC has an official position on "Creation and Science." The summary statement begins as follows:

All of life, including scientific endeavor, must be lived in obedience to God and in subjection to his Word. Therefore, Christian scholarship that integrates faith and learning is to be encouraged. The church does not impose an authorized interpretation of specific passages in Scripture; nor does it canonize certain scientific hypotheses. Instead, it insists that all theological interpretations and all scientific theories be subject to Scripture and the confessions.

In my opinion, there is much to commend here, although the "insistence" that scientific theories "be subject to Scripture and the confessions" does give me pause: competing understandings of this conviction led to the painful struggle I will describe shortly. The statement then turns to human origins:

Humanity is created in the image of God; all theorizing that minimizes this fact and all theories of evolution which deny the creative activity of God are rejected.

I don't know any Christian who would disagree with that. But there's more.

The clear teaching of Scripture and the confessions rules out holding views that support the reality of evolutionary forebears of the human race.

This blunt disavowal of human common ancestry with non-human species is, it would seem, completely unambiguous, committing the CRC to an unqualified rejection of entire fields of scientific inquiry.

More to the point of this post, those who know me should be worried. I am fond of exploring genetic and genomic findings that are best explained by common descent, and in various public forums I teach students (and others) that the human genome is overrun with features that point quite unmistakably to our kinship with other organisms on earth. How can a Calvin professor get away with this? Well, consider the final sentence of the CRC's statement.

But further investigation or discussion regarding the origin of humanity should not be limited.

This final declaration is the reason I can be a professor at Calvin College. Without it, I wouldn't even consider being a part of the faculty or of the denomination.

So how did this enigmatic statement come to be?

Evolution and Creation at Calvin College: Initial Controversy 1984-1988

The statement, which summarizes a report approved by Synod(1) in 1991, represents the culmination of a controversy that rocked both church and college for several years. According to Harry Boonstra, author of Our School, a nice little history of Calvin published in 2001, "the creation-evolution debate became the most critical controversy in the history of Calvin College." It came at a time of simmering conflict over issues of women in church office and other concerns (hermeneutics, secular politics) that loosely characterize recent struggles in Christian churches and denominations of many kinds. Dark threats of "secession" were already being uttered in the early 1980's, and by the mid-1990's, dissatisfaction with CRC decisions on creation and on women in office had driven thousands of people – and scores of congregations – out of the denomination, birthing one new denomination in the process. It would be a mistake to underestimate the intensity of the conflict. The CRC's current position on the matters at hand is the fruit of that conflict, and it all started at Calvin College.

The basic outline, sketched by Boonstra, is as follows. In 1982, Davis Young (then professor of geology) published the now-classic (and soon-to-be-updated) Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Young specifically disclaimed human evolution, but embraced the great age of the earth and repudiated YEC claims. This surely lit some fuses, but the eruption of open conflict seems to have followed the publication (in the official church magazine, The Banner) of an interview with Clarence Menninga (then professor and chair of geology at Calvin) in which Menninga openly asserted the likelihood of an ancient earth, a lengthy span of human history, and even the possibility that Adam was a Neanderthal. Angry letters became an "avalanche" which became more of a firestorm in 1987 with the publication of The Fourth Day by Howard Van Till (then professor of physics and astronomy, and subject of a previous post at my blog). Like the geologists, Van Till did not specifically endorse human evolution (or common descent in general), and the book focuses on cosmic history without delving into biological evolution in any detail. But The Fourth Day openly explores approaches to Genesis that view it as something other than narrative history. At that point, the college empanelled a committee to examine the professors' conduct. I find Boonstra's description to be riveting:

The mandate of the committee was to determine whether these statements are in accord with the synodically adopted guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture and with the doctrinal statements of the Christian Reformed Church." [...] The committee's conclusions and report were greeted with considerable fanfare. This was probably the only committee in the history of the college that elicited a press conference.

Evolution and Creation at Calvin College: Synodical Conflict 1988 - 1991

The subsequent trustees' report to Synod in 1988 was "generally supportive of the professors," but the response of the denomination was a swarm of overtures, overwhelming in their condemnation of the report. The Synod meeting saw "vigorous" debate, ending with unenthusiastic endorsement of the college's report. But Synod empanelled its own committee (it's a CRC thing), "mandated to study the relationship between general and special revelation." And 1988 saw the publication, by Van Till, Young and Menninga, of the excellent but hard-hitting Science Held Hostage, which was subtitled "What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism."

It was during this time that public attacks on the professors' views reached levels of slanderous vitriol that make me angry and ashamed even now. I will omit the details; suffice it to say that great harm was done to the cause of Christ and to the good name of the CRC. As Boonstra puts it, "scurrilous accusations were used as often as genuine arguments." These slanders appeared in huge advertisements in the local newspaper and in a magazine (Christian Renewal) popular with conservatives (and, later, secessionists). I'm glad I wasn't here to see it, and I'm certain I wouldn't have exhibited the restraint that Dave, Clarence and Howard showed, and continue to show, toward people who have earned the strongest of rebukes for indefensible behavior.

(It should be noted that the professors were not the only targets; college leaders and trustees were disparaged with comparable opprobrium.)

Reasoned debate and discussion occurred as well, thank God, and the best example is the exchange initiated by Alvin Plantinga which played out on the pages of Christian Scholar's Review and Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.

The committee made its "lengthy and thorough" report three years later, in 1991. Again, a storm of critical overtures set the stage for protracted debate in the Synod meeting. Here's Boonstra:

This time synod debated for eight hours – much of it focused on a minority recommendation (Declaration F) that "the church declares that the clear teaching of Scripture and of our confessions on the uniqueness of human beings as image bearers of God rules out all theories that posit the reality of evolutionary forebears of the human race." Synod, however, refused to accept this statement, largely on the grounds that the CRC had never made an official pronouncement on the scientific details of creation.

If you're confused by this, join the club. That declaration seems not to differ in any significant sense from the statement that was adopted and is quoted in the first section of this post. Boonstra does not explain how Synod got from Declaration F to the position statement we have now, but the only real difference I can see is the all-important disclaimer, the one sentence that saved academic freedom for biologists (among others) at Calvin College.

The Conflict Subsides

Shortly thereafter, the conflagration seemed to end – not with a bang, but a whimper, according to Boonstra:

Synod 1991 still received twenty-four overtures – mostly critical of Van Till's views – but these overtures were now in competition with the thirty-eight overtures against women in ecclesiastical office. By 1992 this number was reduced to three, and two final overtures in 1994 were the last blip on the synodical screen. The church seemed to signal that the storm was over.

Well, there it is: a not-so-brief overview of the most intense controversy in the 125-year history of Calvin College. In the next post, I'll offer my personal reflections on Calvin College as it is today, based on my seven years as a biologist and evolutionist at one of the finest Christian colleges in the world.

(1) The CRC is governed by a yearly assembly, a synod, composed of representatives of each classis, which is a group of congregations. A classis, or an individual congregation, can bring recommendation or complaint to Synod through the delivery of an overture.

Would your Church allow you to Publicly Support Evolution?

Last September I commented on biologist Richard Colling’s plight at ONU instigated by his public support for biological evolution. I suspect this type of story will become more prevalent in the next several years since although Evangelical biologists largely support evolution, it is still very rare for Evangelical church or ministry leaders to publicly pronounce their acceptance of the scientific theory. These scientists represent the vanguard in attempting to persuade the broader Evangelical church that peace with evolution is possible and preferable, but, as in most theaters of war, being a peacemaker can be a very dangerous assignment.

Visiting a Baptist Monk

I really enjoy Michael Spencer’s Internet Monk blog. His “dispatches from the Post-Evangelical Wilderness” are always direct, engaging, thought provoking, and spiritually challenging. I have said in the past that I prefer to keep the moniker Evangelical rather than abandon it for “Post-Evangelical” as Spencer does. However, after reading his blog for a while, I believe his vision and hope for the Post-Evangelical church appears similar to my own for the Evangelical church, so maybe our disagreement is simply semantic.

Spencer certainly does not fit the stereotypical image of a Southern Baptist Bible teacher. I highly doubt his views on inerrancy are supported by many SBC members, and it seems to get him into trouble occasionally. And although even moderate SBC churches like Saddleback officially support Young Earth Creationism, Spencer emphatically states that he does not. He defends a high view of scripture, but also understands what the Bible is, and what it is not. He comments that:

Ever since I read Conrad Hyers’ The Meaning of Creation and realized that the Bible wasn’t a science book and its inspiration wasn’t involved in the views of science in ancient cultures, I’ve not lost much sleep over the relationship of religion and science.

An SBC Minister on Evolution: No Comment?

Although Spencer is comfortable with an old earth, it appears he does not take a strong public position on evolution (either for or against). Undoubtedly, one reason for this is that the science / faith dialogue is not a priority for him. However, it is unlikely that he will ever publicly support evolution – at least if he wants to continue with his current employment. In a post about Tim Keller’s support of Theistic Evolution (TE), Spencer comments on how significant Keller’s support of TE would be within the Evangelical community. (Note: the post was eventually pulled because of ambiguity over whether Keller actually supports TE). Spencer then asks some great questions (primarily to Christian leaders like himself):

For those of you who are theistic evolutionists (or might possibly be if you knew what you believed), could you openly announce your belief in theistic evolution in your setting? Especially in your church? your sermon? your college or seminary class (as student or teacher)? your ordination council? your session or church board? your ministry employment?

He then provides, with typical directness, what would happen if one day he announced his belief in TE:

I’d be fired from my job as Bible teacher, chapel preacher and campus minister. Immediately.

Not really good incentive to investigate evolution further – particularly since it is clearly not a central issue to his ministry. Frankly, I don’t blame him for not pursuing this matter any further.

A PCA Minister on Evolution: Risky Comments

The Keller situation that Spencer mentions above is also interesting in this context. In his new book “The Reason for God” Keller does provide qualified support for a Theistic Evolution position (at least asserting that it is within the bounds of orthodoxy). (See: Tim Challies book review here, this article in First Things, and this interview in Newsweek for details). Keller is a very influential pastor in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), a conservative Presbyterian denomination whose Creation statement (HT: BTF) includes this paragraph on the initial chapters of Genesis:

“In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth* ex nihilo*; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life).”

Now, as Rich Blinne notes, the above report was submitted by a non-binding advisory group within the PCA, and so it cannot necessarily be used to censure Tim Keller. Still it is clear that Keller, with his qualified support of evolution, is offside with the majority within his own denomination and is likely taking some personal risk by doing so.

It is heartening to see Evangelical church leaders like Keller reject the Evangelical / Evolution conflict thesis. We need more leaders with his integrity and stature speaking out. It requires courage and wisdom, courage for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with Evangelical culture, wisdom since speaking out can potentially cause more damage than good. Not every church leader is in a situation where this type of public announcement is possible or advisable.

Evangelical Grass-roots and Evolution

The situation is similar for many grass-roots Evangelicals. Personally, I’m fortunate that our family is involved with an Evangelical Anglican Church (with a heavy emphasis on the Evangelical) in which God’s method of creation is a non-issue – you won’t see us participating in Evolution Sunday but neither will you hear a sermon condemning modern scientific theories of the development of life. So for me there is little personal risk in discussing my views in the church. However, most Evangelicals grappling with the implications of an evolving creation are not so fortunate. I suspect many would lose whatever position they held in their church, maybe even their membership, if they publicly stated their acceptance of evolution. Charges of heresy and abandonment of the gospel would inevitably strain friendships and family relationships. For many, the price would be very high.

What Personal Ramifications?

I’m interested in hearing other personal perspectives on this problem. What would the ramifications be in your church if you stated your support for evolution? Are these ramifications clearly spelled out in your church charter or membership requirements? Or is opposition to evolution an unwritten rule unanimously accepted by all? How would support for evolution impact your relationship with your family or other Christian friends? How would it affect your participation in parachurch Christian ministries or services? Could you continue working in these organizations?

An even more significant question: For those of you that have revealed your acceptance of evolution, was it really worth it? Would you do it again, or would you choose to remain silent if given the choice to start over?

Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Evolution

One aspect of the Evangelical / Evolution dialogue I find fascinating is the differing reactions to evolution within the Evangelical camp (usually just varying degrees of intense opposition). I’ve already posted some brief thoughts on the Christian Reformed Church and Lutherans, and now I’d like to comment on the Anabaptist / Mennonite reaction. (Note: Anabaptists are not really a proper subset of Evangelicalism but there is a significant intersection in my opinion).

The Anabaptist reaction is of particular personal interest to me since my background is thoroughly Mennonite – at least 4 generations on both sides of my family and, I suspect, back to the original Anabaptists during the reformation. Although my family left the Mennonite church when I was six, I grew up in a “Mennonite culture”. Most of the members of our church came from either an Old Order or other conservative Mennonite backgrounds, a majority of the our farming neighbors were some form of Mennonite or Amish, and many of my relatives were (and still are) Old Order Mennonites.

There was a recent interesting post and discussion on Anabaptists and Science and Religion at the Young Anabaptist radicals blog. The author provides his view of the science / faith discussion within the Anabaptist tradition – actually, he comments that there is very little discussion among modern Anabaptists.

In the Anabaptist churches, however, I see little of this discussion. Perhaps it’s the lingering suspicion of higher education from our Anabaptist forebears. Perhaps it’s our emphasis on social justice and discipleship at the expense of other matters. But whatever the reason, there just aren’t very many Mennonites or Brethren out there talking about science and religion.

He then concludes by asking some very interesting questions regarding this lack of discussion.

So, here are my questions for you. Firstly, why is this something that is never talked about in the Mennonite Church? Secondly, do you think that it is something that should be talked about? Is it an unimportant issue? Is this just pointless intellectual hair-splitting that is better saved until we’ve actually solved things like hunger, war, and poverty? Finally, if it is something that we should talk about, is there something distinctly “Anabaptist” that we can bring to this issue?

I’d like to make 2 comments. First, although not necessarily healthily, I think this lack of discussion is much better than the thoroughly unhealthy opposition to the findings of modern science found in the broader evangelical church. The Anabaptist emphasis on orthopraxy (eg. In the area of social action) is something the broader Evangelical church should learn from. (And we are, albeit slowly, from Anabaptist Evangelicals like Ron Sider). This emphasis on orthopraxy does not have to come at the expense of orthodoxy; “right thinking” and “right action” need to be balanced.

Second, I believe there indeed are some “distinctly Anabaptist” ideas that can be brought to the table in the science / faith discussion. Nancey Murphy, an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren, has done a good job of articulating this perspective. For example, her view on “God’s Nonviolent Direct Action” (see chapter 2 of Religion and Science: God, Evolution, and the Soul) should be required reading for anyone trying to understand divine action in the light of evolution. In my opinion, this Anabaptist-ethic model is very helpful to those of us trying to avoid the “Cosmic Tyrant God” of ID on one hand, and the “Non-existent God” of Richard Dawkins and other metaphysical materialists on the other. In fact, this view of God’s action is the only one, for me, that begins to address the issue of theodicy.

Lutherans and Evolution

Back in May I commented that, among Evangelicals, those in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) are less likely to find evolution challenging to their faith. I speculated that this was because they had few ties with the early 20th century fundamentalist / modernist controversy. Seems that this is also true of the Lutheran church. Lars Hammar, a Lutheran pastor in Arizona, writes a very nice article on evolution here. He states:

Historically, Lutherans never got into the whole evolution-creationism debate. We avoided it, just didn’t enter into it at all. As a result, some of our members have more conservative views, some more liberal, but little in the way of an official church stance. Anecdotally, I would say that most Evangelical Lutherans (what we are at Our Saviour’s) believe in evolution (if you can say that evolution is something you believe in, and not something you accept as fact or deny). Definitely most Lutheran pastors and church leaders accept evolution.

I suspect part of the reason for not entering the debate is that during the crucial moment (early 20th century) the Lutheran church probably still looked to Europe (Germany, Scandinavia) for much of its theological leadership. Whereas denominations like the Baptists and Presbyterians had been completely assimilated to American culture by the early 20th century, the Lutherans and the CRC (Dutch) were not.

As a side note, George Murphy, one of my favorite science-theology-interaction writers, is also a Lutheran pastor. You can check out his website at http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/.

Some thoughts on the CRC and evolution

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.

• The Evolution Controversy at Calvin College: Historical Perspective by Stephen Matheson
• Teaching Evolution at Calvin College: A Personal Perspective by Stephen Matheson
• My Journey from Opposing Evolution to Studying it by Ryan Bebej
• My Transition from a Conservative Creationist to a Theistic Evolutionist (albeit with some unanswered questions) by Eric DeVries
• Being an Evolutionary Creationist in a Confessionally Reformed Church: Part 2 - Reflections and Becoming an Agent for Change by Terry Gray

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