The Process of Building an Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE)

This is the sixth post in a series on “An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE)”. If you are new to the series, you may wish to read 1) The Introduction, 2) ESE Objectives, 3) ESE Approach , 4) ESE Contents, and 5) ESE Contents Addendum first.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the conversation on the ESE, both in the comment sections and via email; in particular I’d like to thank those who provided emails of encouragement. To me, it is clear that the time is ripe for this type of statement from Evangelical ECs. This (much delayed) final post outlines my own ideas on how we should tackle the project.

Even though the internet is ideal for connecting those with common interests, I believe that it is imperative for the ESE to be launched and lead by a group that can meet (at least initially) in face-to-face discussions. What the ESE says and how it is communicated to the broader Evangelical community will be scrutinized very closely. Since the ESE is a message of hope for our (current and future) brothers and sisters in Christ, we must make every effort to avoid careless, uninformed, or insensitive statements. Face-to-face discussions should minimize this risk.

The Process
The tasks listed below are the ones I believe are necessary to make the ESE a success. This is a more-or-less chronological process although some overlap is possible.

1) Formation of the ESE leadership group
The first step is to form a leadership group that can provide oversight to all aspects of the project, and who will be accountable for its ultimate success. This group should have experts from various academic and vocation backgrounds (scientists, theologians, biblical scholars, pastors) and should reflect the broad theological diversity within Evangelicalism.

2) Definition of vision and objectives
The first task for the leadership group is to define the vision and objectives for the ESE. The discussion during this blog series (particularly in the objectives and approach posts) may be a helpful starting point here.

3) Define and enlist a roster of authors
A small group of authors should be enlisted to draft the ESE. This group could be a subset of the leadership group; it should certainly include the same theological, academic, denominational, and vocational diversity. Ideally this roster would be composed of 4 to 6 individuals; anything more could prove unwieldy.

4) Define and enlist a group of Founding Signatories
The roster of founding signatories may be even more important than the roster of authors; ie. who signs the document may be just as significant as what it says. Ideally, all denominational, theological, and international constituencies that are included within Evangelicalism will be represented within this group in some form. The group should also be composed of respected Evangelical theologians, biblical scholars, church and parachurch leaders, as well as Evangelical scientists from the various scientific disciplines relevant to the study of evolution. Recruiting these founding signatories will be crucial for the success of the ESE. It would also be helpful if these signatories committed to providing an introduction to the ESE (either formal or informal) to their own constituency in a forum that seems most appropriate to them.

5) Define the process for drafting and achieving approval for the final statement
Although the authors are tasked with drafting the statement, they should solicit input from a wide range of Evangelicals. At a minimum the entire leadership group and founding signatories would need to approve the final wording. Yes I understand that this step could significantly delay the publication of the statement. However, I believe that formulating a high-quality statement is more important than releasing a hasty statement.

6) Publish the ESE
This is probably the easiest task; the internet is the ideal place to publish a statement of this sort and there are lots of options available. The leadership group could also augment this with other targets (eg. Evangelical publications like Christianity Today).

7) Implement a communication plan
The initial publication of the ESE will certainly be important. However, we are after lasting impact, not simply a flurry of publicity. As such, there needs to be an ongoing communication plan to ensure that believers and seekers continue to hear and have access to the message that faith and evolution are not in conflict. Fifteen or twenty years from now the Evangelical church may have come to a lasting peace with science. Until then we need a plan to continue communicating the harmony between faith and science.

8) Implement a mechanism to enroll other signatories
Finally, the ESE should have some mechanism for other Evangelical ECs to sign the statement. As well, there should be processes in place for the ongoing management of this list.

The First Step
From my viewpoint the first step is to form the ESE leadership group. And although I believe this blog series outlines a solid framework for launching the ESE project, and that an informal group made up of EC bloggers and our readers could publish a fairly good statement, we could never come close to maximizing the potential of this project. As I hinted earlier, I think the Biologos Foundation is ideally positioned to initiate this project. That fall workshop led by Tim Keller with 15 leading scientists, 15 leading theologians, and 15 leading pastors from the Evangelical community seems to me to be an ideal forum to launch the discussion. The focus of the workshop will be on:

celebrating God’s creation in light of 21st century knowledge about the universe and our place in it.

Worshiping our Creator and celebrating his creation brings joy to both us and Him. But not everyone feels this sense of wonderment and contentment. For many, discussions about how the Creator created produce only cognitive dissonance. We must go beyond celebration and communicate to others why this celebration is both possible and warranted. I believe the ESE can help accomplish this goal.

ESE Contents: Addendum

This is the fifth post in a series on “An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE)”. If you are new to the series, you may wish to read 1) Introduction, 2) ESE Objectives, 3) ESE Approach , and 4) ESE Contents first.

In preparing this series on the ESE, I never intended to get bogged down in the details of the actual statement – that is a future task. However, after receiving feedback on the content in the last post, I think this brief content addendum is required to fix some glaring omissions (three), and to suggest that one of our objectives should be addressed more indirectly.

A) Randomness and Purpose

Reconciling the randomness in evolution with God’s sovereignty is a huge hurdle for many (see comments by Vance); the ESE should address this, if only briefly. In the section on purpose, we could mention one or more of the following:

1. randomness is closely tied to unpredictability. Unpredictability is often simply a function of human limitations. God does not have these limitations.
2. Scripture asserts that God is in control & can accomplish his purposes even in random events (eg. Prov 16:33, Acts 1:26)
3. God provides true freedom to his creation (eg. humanity) but is in complete control, and can accomplish his purposes, even when that freedom is abused.

Whole books have been written on this subject (eg. God, Chance, and Purpose by David Bartholomew) and rigorous debate on this reconciliation still persists, even within the EC camp. So we need to carefully consider what we say here. But to Vance’s point, we can not be silent.

B) Scientific Explanations and God

Something should be mentioned about the relationship between scientific explanations & divine action. Two related points here:

1. Scientific explanations are not an alternative for God’s action in the world; divine action and natural events are not mutually exclusive (see Hornspiel’s comments). The resolution of this false dichotomy has been so ingrained in the EC mindset (or at least mine) that we sometimes forget others may consider it a problem. Since it is a significant issue for many in our audience, we should definitely make some statement addressing the false dichotomy – maybe it should be the first item mentioned in the section on science.
2. On the other hand, science does not exclude the possibility of miracles (eg. Comment by Vance). Making scientific statements like “this event is extremely unlikely to occur given our current knowledge” or “no scientific explanation for this past event can be made at this time” are valid claims. However, science cannot rule out any event a priora. As Evangelical Christians we firmly believe that God can, has, and continues to perform miracles within his creation, and that some of those miracles would be deemed “impossible” by science.

C) Mention of the Fear of Science

An explicit statement to those “who fear science” may be counterproductive. Per the conversation in the comments with wtanksley (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7), I agree we should take the explicit statement out of the ESE but address it indirectly since this target audience is important (even if there are many in this group that would not admit membership in it).

D) Positive Statement on the message of early Genesis

Stating something positive on the message of the early part of Genesis is, I suspect, the most glaring omission in the previous post – several people identified it (Joel was first). As a couple people noted (Allan & Cliff), Evangelical OT scholars have taken several different (often overlapping) hermeneutic approaches to the first few chapters of Genesis. Therefore we should be careful not to adopt one single approach. Still, I think there are some theological statements that should be mentioned. An example of what we might say is below (a slightly modified version of what Allan proposed):

The early chapters of Genesis have much to teach us about God (his sovereignty over all of creation, his faithfulness, and his love), creation (it is good, it owes is being to God) and humanity (our creation in the image of God, our disobedience, and our dependence on God’s faithfulness to repair our relationship). However, the inspired writers were not trying to convey scientific information in these early chapters and we should not expect it to answer our modern scientific questions.

So, yes I am abandoning my initial hesitation on taking a firm stance against scientific concordism.

Whew …

Not sure if I mentioned it before, but writing a short statement is probably going to be an order of magnitude more difficult than writing a long one.

An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE): Contents

This is the fourth post in a series on “An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE)”. If you are new to the series, you may wish to read the Introduction, ESE Objectives, and ESE Approach first.

Crafting a statement on evolution may be difficult for Evangelical Evolutionary Creationists (ECs). On the one hand, this is a very contentious topic in the broader Evangelical community and we must be careful if we are to have a positive impact on that community. On the other hand, many salient aspects of the dialogue are contentious even within the very small EC community. In the last post we discussed “How” we should say what we need to say; in this one I’ll lay out my suggestions on “What” we should say.

Some Initial Notes
I) A qualification: This is a broad overview of the content, and not a suggestion for the final (or maybe even initial) wording. My hope is that others will take this content and create the final statement (more on that in the next post)

II) A note on style: I see three options for the ESE (other suggestions welcome)

1. A style similar to the Clergy Letter Project
2. A “We believe” statement – somewhat like a statement of faith
3. An Open Letter to our Evangelical community

My initial vote would go with #3.

III) Sections: I have divided the content into 6 sections: Creation, New Creation, Scripture, Science, Biological Evolution, and Purpose. These do not need to form 6 sections in the final ESE but I believe all of this content should be included in some manner.

A) Creation
The ESE should begin with an emphatic affirmation that we believe in creation. We trust in a God to whom the universe owes its origin and being. We trust a loving Creator who continues to sustain his creation from moment to moment. Even though the term “creation” has been tarnished in our modern culture, we need to reclaim and proclaim creation. As Richard Bube outlined most eloquently back in 1971, “We Believe in Creation”.

B) A New Creation
We also look forward to a new creation, when “All things will be made new”. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is both our hope and our promise. But this New Creation is not something that is restricted to the future. It is in our hearts. The Kingdom of God has already come. This is the good news we want to share with others.

C) Scripture
As Christians, we are “People of the Book”; as Protestant Christians we maintain the authority of Scripture; as Evangelical Protestants we continue to affirm the inspiration and authority of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, even when many of our Protestant cousins no longer agree with this claim.

Three points for discussion here:

1. I believe the ESE should remain silent on inerrancy, even as umbrella organizations like the NAE and the EFC are silent. Some Evangelical EC’s may still strongly affirm inerrancy (although, maybe not the version articulated in the Chicago Statement). Other Evangelical EC’s (maybe most) have strong reservations on inerrancy or at least would wish to qualify the term.

2. I am not sure if the ESE should say anything about scientific concordism. Some (probably a very few) ECs still maintain this hermeneutic strategy. So I’m tempted to be silent on this as well since a) I think the ESE should be as “big a tent as possible” and b) I think we should minimize negative terminology. On the other hand, as Rob mentioned here, scientific concordism is very problematic. So maybe the statement needs to say something as simple as “God’s Word is not intended to teach us science”.

3. More fundamentally, what does the ESE state about specific interpretations of Genesis – particularly Gen 1-11 or maybe just Gen 1-3? I am at a loss on what to say here – I’m tempted again to remain silent. How does one produce a statement which is acceptable to both staunch concordists (eg. Glenn Morton and Dick Fischer) and to those who maintain that the early part of Genesis bears little relation to historical or scientific fact (eg. Denis Lamoureux and Paul Seely)?

D) Science
Two things we should mention:

1. Christians are called to be people of integrity. This includes the area of science. We need to go where the evidence leads us, not where we think the evidence should go.

2. Many Evangelicals fear science (see ESE objective 2b) . This is highly regrettable. Since science is the study of God’s handiwork, Christians should revel in the study of creation. As Stephen Matheson noted, opponents of faith stole the reverent study of science from the Church; it may be time to steal it back.

E) Biological Evolution
I have already received several suggestions for what to include here. My view is that we include only those claims that are well supported by the evidence. This basically maps to E1, E2, and E3 from Allan’s definitions for evolution:

• The earth is billions of years old and the geological record shows a progression in the development of life over many millions of years.
• Common descent: The evidence strongly indicates links between all living organisms both in the present and in the past. Thus we can say with some confidence that any two living organisms on earth today share a common ancestor (maybe in the very ancient past).
• Many different evolutionary mechanisms (eg. natural selection, genetic mutations, genetic drift) are important factors in the development of life on earth. It appears that God used these mechanisms in creating life, including the creation of humanity, the living organism he created in his own image.

My suggestion is that we leave out E4 (that evolutionary mechanisms completely account for common descent). Personally, I have no problem with E4 and believe it is theologically attractive and sound. However, I also believe the really important hurdle for the Evangelical church is common descent; let’s not make the bar higher than it needs to be (or possibly higher than it is warranted).

F) Purpose
Many people equate evolution with purposelessness. We must state categorically that this is incorrect. God has a definite purpose for creation; he has revealed much of that purpose through his written Word and the Word made flesh. God has both the ability and the will to accomplish that purpose, no matter what the cost (and thus his ultimate sacrifice). That his purpose will be accomplished is ultimately assured – even though he has given much freedom to his creation (including rebellious humanity).

I suggest that the ESE remain silent on design. I am sure that some ECs will be passionate in their desire to include some positive affirmation of design in the ESE; I am equally sure that many others (maybe most) would just as strongly wish to articulate a rejection of Intelligent Design (at least the ID movement). I think neither strategy would be helpful in accomplishing the goals articulated earlier. Design is a slippery concept, and I doubt we will achieve consensus on how we should articulate our position on it. More pertinent however, even though all of us believe that an intelligent designer (our God) was responsible for creation, design is not nearly as strong as purpose, is not as scripturally relevant as purpose, and is not as theologically important as purpose. Thus purpose must, in my opinion, be included the ESE while design should be neither affirmed nor rejected.

G) Conclusion
In our conclusion, I think we should affirm that we believe that harmony between faith and science can be achieved. However, we should also acknowledge that there are differences of opinion on how that harmony is reached. There is no point in pretending there is consensus when there may be significant differences of opinion between us on matters like biblical interpretation and models for divine action. What we share however, is a faith in the Creator God, and a desire demonstrate integrity in the study of his creation.

Finally, I believe we should directly address objective #2 defined earlier, ie. Helping those struggling with issues of faith and science. We might articulate it as follows:

• To those Evangelicals considering abandoning their faith because of the evidence for evolution we say, “The conflict between science and an Evangelical expression of the Christian faith is completely unnecessary. We can trust the Creator God even if our understanding of how he created has changed over the centuries.
• To those Evangelicals that fear science we say, “Do not be afraid. Science is simply the study of God’s creation. A deeper understanding of creation can lead to a deeper appreciation of the Creator.”
• To those who are considering a commitment to Christ we say, “You CAN have the best of both worlds; both the one that leads to forgiveness, love, and spiritual fulfillment and the one that is intellectually satisfying and coherent with a scientific worldview.

Ok, in my last post I said the ESE should be short. However, in describing the contents I wrote possibly my longest post ever. Maybe this is going to be even more difficult than anticipated.

An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE): Approach

In the last post we discussed the objectives for the ESE. Before moving on to the content of the statement (that will be the next post in the series), I’d like to first share my view on the ESE’s approach. What should be its character? If someone read the ESE for the first time, how would they describe it?

Characteristic #1: Positive in Tone and Content

Sadly, many Christian position statements seem very negative, both in their tone (aggressively attacking whatever is perceived to be the problem) and in content (defining itself by what it is not, rather than what it is). Given the polarization of positions in the faith / science dialogue, a negative statement by Evolutionary Creationists (ECs) would only exacerbate this polarization. Special creationists are not our enemies; they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Atheists are not our enemies; they too are created in the image of God (even if this is not acknowledged). If we want our message to be heard, we need to state our position with grace and compassion. If our objective is to win hearts and minds (or at least convince others that there is no need for warfare), we need to articulate positive aspects of an EC position (see HornSpiel's comment).

Characteristic #2: Displaying a Spirit of Humility

All of us have been wrong at times. Many of us were once very wrong on the evidence for evolution (and maybe, to our shame, made aggressive claims that we now regret). Since we are called to clothe ourselves with humility (Col 3:12), the ESE should echo that humility. ECs are not necessarily smarter, more honest, or more Christ-like; we have simply discovered (often through painful experience) that the science-faith war is completely unnecessary. The ESE should be written to share this good news, and not as an opening salvo for renewed debate.

Characteristic #3: Modest in its claims

I like Allan’s point in an earlier comment that the ESE should be modest in its claims. Scientific theories are continually being corrected and modified (see Irenicums comment) and we should not tie the ESE to specific (and possibly debatable) aspects of the theory. Allan’s proposed affirmation that:

science suggests that God may have used evolutionary processes to create, and from a Biblical and theological standpoint it is OK if that's how it happened

may be too modest for some of us, but I think it is good place to start the discussion. I suspect the extent of the modesty will be one of the more difficult decisions to make when crafting the ESE.

Characteristic#4: Broad appeal

One of the most attractive aspects of Evangelicalism is its ability to see beyond denominational boundaries. Most Evangelicals are very willing to work with others in advancing the Kingdom of God, even when theological differences abound. The ESE should take this approach as well, and appeal to the entire Evangelical spectrum. This means that the ESE should avoid specific theological claims that would be unacceptable to Reformed, Arminian, Lutheran, Anglican, Anabaptist, or any other Evangelical theological tradition.

Characteristic #5: Short

If the ESE is to raise awareness of the faith-science dialogue within the Evangelical community, it will have to be relatively short. A long, detailed document will not be broadly read, and will mean that certain interpretations of the ESE (probably unfriendly) will be read more than the ESE itself. If the ESE is longer than this blog post, it is probably too long.

Characteristic #6: “An” Evangelical statement; not “The” statement

No one can claim to speak for all Evangelicals, and this is especially true in the polarized science-faith dialogue. On the one hand, the ESE should clearly state that the position it espouses on scripture, creation, and evolution is consistent with the Evangelical tradition and that it is accepted by a wide variety of Evangelicals. However, it should also acknowledge that this position will not be acceptable to all Evangelicals, at least in the short term.

Questions
Is this an approach you think would work? Are there other characteristics that should be considered?

An Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE): Objectives

In the last post we discussed the possibility & value of building an Evangelical Statement on Evolution (ESE for short). Personally, I think the time is right for Evolutionary Creationists (ECs) to produce such a statement. However, I also think we need to be very careful; there are some risks in a project like this. If not done right, the results could be very counterproductive.

A New Series
In the next several posts I’d like to take a preliminary stab at:

a) the objectives we should define for the ESE
b) the approach and character of the statement
c) the contents of the statement
d) the process by which we should build it (hint: the answer isn’t the internet let alone this blog).

I should stress that these are merely preliminary ideas. I’m hoping that they can serve as a catalyst for other ECs to come up with something even better. Actually, most of these ideas are not my own, but merely a synthesis of ideas that others have contributed here and elsewhere. At the end of this series I’m mulling over conducting a survey to get further feedback. Let me know if you would like to participate (or better yet, if you have a good idea on how such a survey should be conducted).

A) ESE Objectives

First we need to define objectives. Why do we really need a statement like the ESE? What are we trying to accomplish? Just as importantly, what is beyond the scope of the ESE? We need to set practical objectives; setting unachievable objectives is simply a recipe for failure. Since (I believe) we want to achieve a broad consensus on what the statement contains, we better have agreement among ourselves on what we are trying to accomplish.

Objective #1: Communicate the Harmony of Faith and Science to the Broader Evangelical Community

Most Evangelicals believe that modern science, and biological evolution in particular, is the enemy of orthodox Christian theology and faith. What is worse, most Evangelicals seem completely unaware that any other view is possible, and that many within their faith community, including some of their own leaders, have already reconciled biological evolution with their faith. A key objective of the ESE will be to raise awareness that coming to peace with evolution is a theologically acceptable perspective for Evangelical Christians.

Objective #2: Provide Encouragement for those Struggling with the Perceived Conflict between Science and Faith

For many, the perceived conflict between faith and science is irreconcilable and thus a choice must be made. This choice can be emotionally and spiritually destructive. The ESE should provide encouragement to those struggling with this conflict, and provide a catalyst for them to come to peace with both their Creator and his creation. This applies to at least three groups of people:

a) Evangelicals considering abandoning their faith because of the evidence for evolution

Evangelicals are often told that evolution is incompatible with Christianity and that it is unsupported by the scientific evidence. However, many Evangelicals that actually examine the evidence for biological evolution find the evidence quite persuasive, and, because of the conflict thesis, they incorrectly believe that their faith must be abandoned. The ESE should demonstrate that many other Evangelicals have accepted the evidence for evolution without abandoning the core elements of Evangelical theology, and while maintaining an authentic and vibrant faith in the risen Christ.

b) Evangelicals that are fearful of science

Evangelical students will often avoid science (I did) because they are afraid that it will be detrimental to their faith. The ESE should show that Christians have nothing to fear from studying science, and that a deeper understanding of creation can lead to a deeper appreciation of the Creator.

c) Those prevented from putting their faith in Christ because of the perceived science / faith conflict

It is my impression that many people who are science-literate have difficulty accepting the Gospel because they equate the evidence for biological evolution with evidence against Christianity. This conflict-thesis stumbling block must be removed if the good news is to be received. The ESE should make it clear that evolution should not prevent anyone from making a faith commitment.

Objective #3: Serve as both a Resource and Encouragement for ECs

Many EC’s are part of communities that are hostile to evolution. These ECs are often reluctant to discuss their ideas within this community for fear of being ostracized. The ESE should provide encouragement to ECs by demonstrating that many Evangelical leaders share their perspective. It should also be a simple and non-threatening resource that can be shared with friends and other members of their community. Hopefully, this in turn will lead to positive dialogue regarding faith and science.

B) Other Worthy Objectives that the ESE should not try to Accomplish

To be successful, the ESE should not try to accomplish too much. Below are a few objectives that, although desirable goals in their own right, should not be considered as objectives for the ESE.

1. Provide Counterarguments to those Raised by AIG, ICR and other Like-minded Organizations

“Anti-evolution Creationist” organizations are well-funded and relatively powerful within the Evangelical community; no doubt they will attack the ESE with vigour. However, it would be impossible to respond to every argument these organizations put forward if we want the ESE to be shorter than a book. We have a multitude of other methods and resources that provide persuasive counter arguments to the conflict-thesis mantra. The ESE should simply make a positive statement on the compatibility of biological evolution and the Christian faith without trying to provide a detailed defense of Evolutionary Creationism.

2. Provide Counterarguments to those that use Evolution to Attack Christianity

For a similar reason, Christian apologetics should not be the goal of the ESE. Again, there are other resources for this purpose.

3. Trigger a Wholesale Change of Attitude within the Broader Evangelical Community

We need to be realistic; a simple statement like the ESE will not result in an immediate and dramatic change of attitude among a majority of Evangelicals. If we can simply start a dialogue, and bring hope to those struggling with the issue, the ESE should be considered a great success.

4. Defend the Integrity of Science in Public Education

Christians should be particularly concerned about integrity. So, it is galling to see dishonest methods used by some Christians in attacking the teaching of evolution. But defending the teaching of evolution should not be the goal of the ESE. That should be left to organizations like, for example, the NCSE.

So, what do you think? Are these valuable objectives? Are they achievable within a reasonable amount of time? Has the bar been set to low? Too high? What other objectives would you like to see?

Building a Community of Evolutionary Creationists

Many of us that accept the scientific consensus for evolution find it difficult to find like-minded individuals interested in exploring the theological implications of an evolving creation. Many others (maybe most Evangelical ECs) would risk membership in their Christian community (Church, mission, etc.) if their views were known. (See for example our past discussion on the question: Would your church allow you to publicly support evolution).

In a new post on changing beliefs, Cliff Martin comments on his frustration in finding this type of community:

So I am facing a conundrum. I am motivated to prepare my friends for what I consider an inevitable paradigm shift, and to develop a community of believers who will study the Bible with me from an evolutionary perspective. But I am having no success. And I risk alienating my own friends if I continue.

The irony is that in seeking to bring together a community that values integrity in both science and faith, we risk being ostracized from both the community of faith and the community of science.

Collins on Creating a New Community
Francis Collins is trying to rectify this problem. In a recent post on “Creating a Community to Explore the Harmony of Science and Faith”, Collins stated that he would like to:

[encourage] a new and vibrant community dedicated to finding the truth in both science and faith. The shrill voices at the poles of the science and faith discussion that claim the scientific and spiritual worldviews are incompatible have their own organized communities. But what about the vast majority that seeks a third way?

From my own limited experience / knowledge, I think Collins belief that a “vast majority” seek this 3rd way is probably overly optimistic. But he is absolutely right that the situation is much better now than it was even a decade ago. He comments that:

There are encouraging signs that people who trust both God and science are beginning to create such a community.

All of us should be thankful to Collins, Falk, Giberson, and the rest of the Biologos team for starting to provide resources for building this type of community. I’m also happy to see Collins is looking for input from other EC/TEs. He states:

These are just initial efforts to help catalyze a community devoted to seeking harmony in science and faith. We'd love to hear any ideas that could help in building this community.

A Suggestion
Well, since he asked, here is my suggestion. I think we should publish an “Evangelical Statement on Evolution” that succinctly states that an Evangelical expression of the Christian faith, and the scientific theory of evolution are compatible. This could be modeled after the Clergy Letter Project, but crafted in a way to ensure it has an explicitly Evangelical character. The statement sponsoring signatories should include evangelical leaders from 1) a broad range of denominations 2) several different academic disciplines (at least scientists, biblical scholars and theologians - yes, we definitely need those timid theologians) and 3) a cross section of Evangelical organizations (eg. missions, umbrella groups like the EFC and the NAE). The statement should also have some mechanism for allowing the rest of us to sign on as well.

And, come to think of it, that November meeting that Tim Keller, Collins and other leading scientists, biblical scholars, and theologians are having would be a great forum to launch this initiative.

Your Feedback
Ok, that’s my idea. What do you think? Do you think the time is right for an Evangelical Statement on Evolution? Would it be a positive step in the discussion, or would it serve only to raise more divisiveness? Do you have any other ideas you’d like to suggest to the Biologos team?

Science and Theology as … Lovers?

The relationship between science and theology is undoubtedly complex. If we were to personify these disciplines, how should we characterize this relationship?

Enemies (Strike 1) …
Science and theology are often thought of as enemies. And the way the relationship plays out in our modern culture seems to lend some credence to this characterization. Some scientists would like the exterminate theology as a respected academic discipline; some Christian theologians would like to invalidate entire branches of modern science.

But this isn’t right. Insisting that science and theology are inherent enemies betrays a lack of thoughtfulness, open mindedness, imagination, or some combination of all three.

Theology as Master of Science (Strike 2) …
Many Christians insist that scientific conclusions must be restricted to boundaries defined by orthodox Christian theology. That is, science is free to investigate God’s creation as long as its conclusions are in accordance with our understanding of theology. For these Christians, theological conclusions trump scientific conclusions.

In particular, many Christians want to canonize theology from some bygone era. For example, an ASA mailing list writer recently commented that:

I am for the most part uninterested in any theology written after about 1600-1700 anyway, except to the extent that it helps to revive and explain for modern audiences the pre-modern tradition of theological thought.

I understand the sentiment of this writer given that much “Christian” theology developed in recent centuries has been more damaging than helpful. But to insist that our orthodox theology needs no re-articulation, is to insist that we completely understand God. As George Murphy responded to the writer above:

… Christian theological tradition [must] be taken seriously in current theological work. But we’ve learned a lot about the world & humanity in the past few centuries, including the knowledge gained by the natural sciences. [These sciences] can’t dictate our theology but need to be taken seriously if we believe that the world that science explores is indeed God’s creation.

Science as Master of Theology (Strike 3) …
Others would like to establish a new religion based on science. Michael Dowd calls himself an “evolutionary Pentecostal” and proclaims the gospel of “Evolutionary Christianity”. For Dowd, it seems that evolutionary science is the central Truth and that our theological conclusions should be developed based on this truth. For Dowd:

Reinterpreting the core elements of our faith: Original Sin, Salvation, the Trinity; the Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus; the Second Coming of Christ, Heaven, Hell, and so on is not only our responsibility, it is our Great Work.

Even a cursory reading of Dowd’s material (eg. See his essay Evolutionary Christianity) shows that his God is more in line with panentheism than theism, and that his theology veers sharply away from orthodox Christianity.

Dowd defends the marriage of science and theology but at a terrible price for theology. This enslavement of theology to science can hardly be considered an ideal relationship.

But this isn’t Baseball …
Fortunately, the science / theology relationship is not governed by the rules of baseball and we are not limited to three strikes. As God showed by bringing back Christ from the dead, hope can never be ruled “out”. The relationship between theology and science does not need to be one of either enmity or enslavement.

Theology and Science as Lovers
Leron Shults has written a beautiful little book called Christology and Science. I am just starting to tackle this book but I suspect it will soon rise to the top of my personal favourites for works that examine the interaction of modern science and orthodox Christianity, possibly on par with Polkinghorne’s Science and Christian Belief and Murphy’s The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross.

Shults begins Christology and Science by noting that this is a particularly challenging time for theology:

In every generation Christian theology is faced with the task of articulating the intuitions of the biblical tradition about the significance of Jesus Christ in a way that engages its own cultural context. The task feels especially daunting and dangerous in the context of interdisciplinary dialogue with contemporary sciences such as evolutionary biology, cultural anthropology and physical cosmology, which question the coherence and plausibility of many traditional Christological formulations.

Challenging and daunting, but also very rewarding. On the relationship between theology and science, Shults states:

I would like to suggest an interpersonal metaphor that is rarely considered appropriate (if considered at all) for the interaction between the disciplines [of theology and science]. Is it possible that we might think of theology and science as lovers?

On careful reflection, this analogy might be particularly apt for the relationship between two disciplines that are fumbling towards mutual understanding. Here’s what Shults says about the Lovers metaphor.

It provides us with a way to make sense of our mutual fear and fascination. We fear existential encounters that we cannot control. This inability to control the other, which evokes trembling in the presence of the beloved, is ingredient to true love. The risk of losing control is part of the delightful experience that binds lovers together.

In the discussion that follows, Shults notes that “Lovers are fascinated by their differences” and that “Lovers who are interested in learning together may still get annoyed with each other”. This is clearly not an easy relationship. But as most of us know, rewarding relationships are never easy.

It was 15 years ago that Mark Noll wrote “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind”. It is my hope that we Evangelicals may finally be learning to love the mind that God has given us, a mind that is fascinated by both God and his creation.

New Faith / Science Resources

One of this Blog's objectives is to provide pointers to other helpful Faith / Science resources. Here are three new resources that should be of interest to many readers.

A) New Resource for Churches: "Test of Faith" Film
The UK based Faraday Institute for Science and Religion is one of the world's premier faith / science organizations and has probably the best set of multimedia resources available on the web. Faraday has now launched a Templeton Foundation supported initiative called Test of Faith with the goal to provide resources to churches. Contributions will come from Polkinghorne, McGrath, Collins and many others. A documentary film has been shot and you can catch a preview at the Pentecost Festival this weekend in London - unfortunately that is London, England and not London, Ontario – so I won’t be attending.

Additional related (but work in progress) resources include:

• A book
• A short course for small groups based on sections of the film.
• A leaders' guide with background information and helps for preparation and further study
• Short articles for free download
• Extracts from the film for use in a talk or sermon
• Extended interviews with scientists to watch online

B) Biologos

Over on this side of the pond Collins along with Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk have launched their own Templeton supported initiative – the Biologos Foundation.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. To communicate this message to the general public and add to the ongoing dialog, The BioLogos Foundation created BioLogos.org.

On their website they have articles, answers to frequently asked questions, and a blog called Science and the Sacred (unfortunately, the authors don’t appear to be participating in the comments section). Other projects include providing curriculum for Christian schools, short courses, and workshops. The first workshop will be led by Tim Keller and looks very interesting:

The fall workshop is intended to build bridges between key leaders, which will open up comfortable communication channels between respected evangelical scientists working on origins, and key religious leaders in the evangelical Christian church. Invitations have been extended to 15 leading scientists, 15 leading theologians, and 15 leading pastors.

The focus of the 2009 workshop will be celebrating God’s creation in the light of 21st century knowledge about the universe and our place in it.

Since this workshop is “invitation only” I won’t be attending this event either. Hey if they have 15 each of leading scientists, theologians, and pastors, you would think they could include at least one blogger? If that concession is made, my vote (and all proxies my readers care to give me) go to RJS who posts on science and faith over at Scot McKnight’s Blog JesusCreed - some of the best conversations in the blogosphere. On her most recent post both Kenton Sparks (author of God’s Word in Human Words) and Peter Enns (author of Inspiration and Incarnation) are participating in the conversation.

C) New Resource for Christian Schools

If you can’t wait for the Biologos curriculum, you should check out Gordon Glover’s just completed 16-part video series Science and Christian Education on his youtube channel. No Templeton Foundation funding or team of world famous scientists and theologians on Gordon’s team. Just one guy that is passionate about helping his fellow Christians understand that science does not have to threaten their faith.

The NCSE Creationism-Evolution Continuum: It is Time for a New Model

The creation-evolution dialogue is complex. This complexity has lead many to misunderstand the issues, and is an important reason why the false creation/evolution dichotomy continues to enjoy such wide support. Any tool that can accurately simplify the discussion should be welcomed.

A) The Creationism/Evolution Continuum

At first blush, the NCSE's “Creationism-Evolution Continuum” appears to be such a tool. To support their objective of encouraging quality science education, the NCSE developed the tool to combat the perceived conflict between religion & science. In Eugenie Scott’s brief overview of the continuum on the NCSE site she states:

It is highly desirable to move people away from this inaccurate [creation / evolution] dichotomy. A simple classroom exercise, the Creationism/Evolution Continuum, has been used successfully by middle and high school teachers as well as university professors to illustrate the many intermediate positions between the extremes.

Pointing out these intermediary positions is a good way to help people understand that there is some complexity to this discussion. However, it is my view that this model may actually be counter-productive, particularly when promoting evolution in various faith communities. I believe that those of us that support the coexistence and coherence of evolution and an Evangelical expression of the Christian faith need a much better model if we are to make any progress on this issue within the Evangelical community.

1) An Overview of the Continuum
The following diagram illustrates the continuum with two modifications that I added myself. These are the addition of an “Evolution Line” in red and a “Faith Line” in blue.


In the diagram, each of the names to the right of the black diagonal line is a position on origins. Those above the grey dotted line believe the earth was created 6-10 thousand years ago; those below accept the scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth. The red-line separates those that oppose evolution (above) from those that support it (below) while the blue line separates those who profess faith in a creator God (above) from those who do not (below). As a list of origins positions, this is not bad. If you have never seen these before, I encourage you to read Scott’s summary. Her description for most of the positions is quite fair.

2) Problems with the Continuum
Although the Creationism/Evolution Continuum is a useful starting point for understanding the origins controversy and for engaging in dialogue, I think that there are three significant problems with it. These problems include 1) how views on scriptural interpretation are placed on the continuum 2) how views on science are placed on the continuum and 3) there is no simple progression of change within origin views so any model based on a continuum is misleading.

a) The Continuum and Scripture
The first parameter that Scott uses in her continuum is scriptural interpretation. She describes the differences in origin positions this way:

[The diagram] presents a continuum of religious views with creationism at one end and evolution at the other. The most extreme views are, of course, at the ends of the continuum. The creation/evolution continuum reflects the degree to which the Bible is interpreted as literally true, with the greatest degree of literalism at the top.

This is partly true. For the positions above Progressive Creationism this is the case, but after that the characterization of “more literal on top” breaks down. For example, many Progressive Creationists (the last position above the evolution-line) would be comfortable with relatively “non-literal” interpretations of scripture, whereas some TEs would advocate “more literal” interpretations of scripture (eg. Glenn Morton and Dick Fischer).

b) The Continuum and Science
How Scott uses the second parameter – the acceptance of science - is a much bigger concern. She states:

Although it is a continuum of religious and philosophical beliefs, the Creation/Evolution Continuum inversely reflects how much of modern science holders of these different views accept.

This characterization is incorrect. At least when it comes to biological evolution, none of the positions below the evolution-line differ in their science whatsoever; the differences are all philosophical and theological. The EC / TE position is excellent science combined with (IMO) excellent theology and philosophy. The positions below the faith-line also encapsulate excellent science, but (again at least IMO) combine it with incorrect theological and philosophical conclusions.

And here is the key point. The continuum as described on the NCSE site strongly implies that “atheist science is better science”. Even though the objective of the continuum is to counter the belief that “evolutionists must be atheists”, it indirectly implies that evolutionists should be atheists. For this fact alone, I think the model needs to be replaced.

c) There is no Continuum
Continuums by definition are unidirectional; as a parameter changes, one progresses along the scale. The discussion above demonstrates that the Creationism/Evolution Continuum model is incorrect for the two parameters identified on the NCSE site (ie. Scriptural interpretation & acceptance of the scientific evidence). However, my contention is that, if the salient parameters are considered, the Creation-Evolution dialogue is not a continuum at all. In fact, I believe that those positions placed on the bottom of the continuum (those below the blue faith-line) share a very strong common viewpoint with those above the red evolution-line. In other words, the middle of this continuum is a mid-point only if you ignore other important parameters.

B) A New Model

I think a much better model is one that groups the positions above based on their answers to two simple questions:

1. The “Who” question: Did a loving God create the universe, the earth, and life in all its diversity, and does he continue to sustain that creation?
2. The “How” question: Is the theory of biological evolution correct? That is, did life on earth develop over millions and millions of years through the process of evolution?

1) Three Basic Groups
Based on how each position answers these questions, I think that all the positions can be grouped into three broad categories that I’ve defined as “Non-evolutionary Creation” – those above the evolution-line, “Evolutionary Creation” – those between the evolution-line and the faith-line, and “Materialistic Evolution” – those below the faith line.


2) Relationships Between the Groups
What is important to note is that the relationship between these three positions is NOT linear; each group has shared viewpoints with the other two groups. Groups A & B both believe that the universe was created by a loving God, and that he continues to sustain his creation. Groups A and C both believe that the theory of evolution is correct. Finally, Groups B & C also share a common viewpoint, that is that the theory of evolution and theism are mutually exclusive concepts ie. Either God is the creator or evolution occurred. The following diagram illustrates these relationships.


C) Some Brief Concluding Thoughts

I realize that this is a fairly simple model and that there are some weaknesses in it; I will likely comment further in future posts. However, let me briefly list some of the advantages I see in this model:

1. A Simpler Model: Simple is often better and this model includes only the most important categories of positions on creation & evolution. Distinguishing between the many different anti-evolution positions (as the Creationism/Evolution Continuum does) needlessly complicates the picture and is unnecessary when the salient point of discussion is evolution. One either accepts that the theory of evolution is correct or one doesn’t. Placing all the positions that do not accept evolution in a single “Non-evolutionary Creation” group means the model is easier to understand.

2. Connecting the Continuum Extremes: The model points out that there is a very strong shared viewpoint between the “opposite ends” of the Creationism/Evolution Continuum. That is why you sometimes see statements of (tepid) respect from those in group B for those in group C (and vise-versa) when lashing out at the wishy-washy EC crowd in the middle.

3. Creation & Evolution: Independent Concepts: This model clearly illustrates creation and evolution as independent concepts; an answer to one does not necessarily dictate an answer to the other. Of course many disagree vehemently with this claim, but that just shows how committed they are to the BC shared viewpoint, a viewpoint that is just as contentious as the AB and AC viewpoints. Identifying and understanding our shared viewpoints, and where we disagree, is an important step towards dialogue.

4. EC is not one step towards Atheism: This model illustrates (IMO correctly) that the EC position is no closer to atheism than other creationist positions. We too believe in a Creator God, and EC theology can be as orthodox (or more so) and EC faith as strong (or stronger) than that of Christians that take other Creationist positions.

5. EC = good science: This model demonstrates that when it comes to science, EC’s share a common view with other evolutionists. From a scientific perspective, the positions are indistinguishable.

Finally, although I’ve been thinking about this for awhile (see the end of this comment on a past post) I should note that the model shown here is really Draft 0.1 – I fully expect that I’ll need to modify it somewhat. I am interested in hearing feedback and criticisms from readers. Is this a helpful model? What would you change? Are there other models that also deal with these issues better than the Creationism/Evolution Continuum?

An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: The Ebook

I have now published the 5th Ebook titled “An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: A collection of articles promoting a positive relationship between Evangelical Christianity and evolutionary science” (click the link for free download). This is a collection of 23 of my posts and provides, I believe, a more-or-less cohesive account of my viewpoint as documented on the blog – “more-or-less” since, as astute readers will have noticed, some of my own ideas have evolved over the last couple of years. Note also that I use the adjective “cohesive”, and not “complete”, when describing my viewpoint; I too am still learning and there are several areas of this conversation that puzzle me as well.

Why this Ebook?
By gathering these particular articles together, I’m hoping that this Ebook can be helpful in several ways:

1. As a “conversation starter” for my fellow Evangelical Evolutionary Creationists who wish to discuss their viewpoints with other Evangelicals.

2. As a resource for Evangelicals wondering how they can integrate the findings of modern science with their faith

3. For those convinced that evolution is antithetical to faith, the Ebook will provide details on why I believe this conclusion is completely mistaken. I have two primary audiences in mind:

• Evangelicals struggling with (or considering abandoning) their faith because of the perceived conflict between that faith and the findings of modern science.
• Those considering making a commitment to the Christ, but who mistakenly believe they must ignore well supported scientific evidence to do so.
  

4. As a summary resource for readers who enjoyed the blog, but discovered it well after it was launched, and don’t have the time to wade through all of the old material.

Another Full Circle
As some of you may remember, for several years prior to the launch of my blog, I had been researching and writing an (ever longer) essay on evolution and its implications for my faith. However, the more I researched and wrote, the more I realized I was getting farther away from complete closure; one of those “one question answered, two questions raised” situations. When I discovered the blogosphere in the spring of 2007, I abandoned the essay and launched the blog to 1) provide a forum to share my thoughts and conclusions with other Evangelicals, and 2) to invite comments, criticism, and corrections from, as well as conversation with, other Evangelicals examining the science / faith interface.

Two years later I can say that my own spiritual and intellectual journey was significantly enhanced by the interactions with you my readers - I can’t thank you enough. And viola, to my own surprise, here is the resurrected essay – very, very, very different from the one I abandoned 2 years ago – but of course, that is what resurrections are.

Happy Easter.