eChurch Blog

The following is a guest post by Cabal, a London based atomic physics Ph.D student.

This article is in response to criticisms of BioLogos, made by Jerry Coyne of Why Evolution is True, and featured on the Richard Dawkins’ website.

Previous post here.

Last week, BioLogos posted a video featuring Dr. Joel Hunter, titled “The Danger of Preaching on Genesis“. There follows a transcript of this video (punctuation mine – video can be found here):

It is a very big risk for pastors in conservative evangelical churches to venture forth and say, “Look, let’s be humble about this.” But the other side of this is – we have, probably, I would say, the vast majority of our people sitting in those pews who are very uncomfortable with: “Look, it was six twenty-four hour days and if you think anything else, then you don’t believe in Scripture.” These are science teachers. These are scientists! These are bright businessmen and businesswomen and people who have been thinking and they just say “Wait a minute, you know, God is God, God can choose any way He wants to create the world,” and it doesn’t make it any less marvellous. As a matter of fact it makes it more marvellous because He would be so intricate in its creation.

When people say, “Look, if the scripture’s not plain to the uneducated mind, if the scripture can’t be understood by what it says to somebody like me, then is the Resurrection really just a story? Is it just a metaphor for rising up out of constraints, and overcoming the death that we face in everyday life and so on and so forth and was there really a Resurrection?” And so that’s what’s at risk for many people, and I don’t, again, want to dismiss or denigrate those who hold a literalist view because they honestly believe that if they vary o that, then they themselves, will have to question the truth of scripture.

You don’t ever want to bully or somehow feel the hubris to call someone a name because they won’t believe like you believe – and that goes for someone who is a literalist as well as someone who is a liberal. Having said that, there are those with a lot more capacity intellectually than they’re using, and they need to be given permission to use that intellectual capacity to understand the fullness of God and the great mystery of God.

Before I proceed, I want to make a couple of things clear. I am a Christian theistic evolutionist. I am not a conservative evangelical, so I am not a member of the kind of congregation that Dr. Hunter is referring to. However, I think some of what he said was not conducive to the point he was trying to make (albeit inadvertently), and may in fact be downright harmful to the notion of reconciling creationists and theistic evolutionists with each other.

My primary objection is the implication in his words that holding a literalistic viewpoint and “an uneducated mind” go hand in hand. As creationists are quick to remind people when defending their viewpoint, many of the scientific giants of the past were also Christians who believed in a young earth, but evidently this did not stop them nor their peers from producing enlightened work. Even though this was before the theory of evolution had come along, there are doubtless many other practising Christians today who are capable, competent, talented and productive human beings who happen to accept six-day creation as part of their belief system.

However, this particularly bad bit of phrasing has been picked up on by Prof. Jerry Coyne, who takes issue with it for a different reason:

Okay, here’s my translation of Hunter’s words into plain-speak.

“Look, fellow preachers, there are a lot of dumb people in our pews who can’t be told that Genesis is wrong because if they see that, then they may start questioning the foundational claims of our faith that are equally bogus, like the Resurrection. Where would we be then? So don’t even intimate that Genesis might be wrong.

On the other hand, we don’t want to alienate the smart people either – those who realize that the claim of a six-day creation is ludicrous, in plain contradiction to the facts of biology and geology. So don’t say anything about Genesis! You’ll put us all out of business!”

By giving preachers a platform to say that Adam and Eve might really have existed, or to warn against questioning Biblical literalism in the face of science, BioLogos has abjured its mission to bend faith to the facts. Their mission now seems to be hiding  the facts so they don’t disturb the faithful. As many have pointed out, this attitude treats religious people as if they were delicate and befuddled little children who simply can’t bear to hear their beliefs questioned. Question their politics, sure, but their religion? Never!

But if you don’t do that, of course, you’ll never convert them to accepting evolution. Isn’t it possible that those `uneducated minds’ could be educated?

It’s possible to bend over backwards so far that your head goes up your butt.

Personally, I can’t see anything in either BioLogos’ “about us” page, or their questions page that suggests that confronting the obvious fact that different Christians have varying beliefs and levels of faith is somehow “abjuring its mission to bend faith to the facts.” In fact, from what I gather Dr. Hunter to be saying, I think it’s quite consistent with what BioLogos is aiming to do:

We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation. Founded by Dr. Francis Collins, BioLogos addresses the escalating culture war between science and faith, promoting dialog and exploring the harmony between the two. We are committed to helping the church – and students, in particular – develop worldviews that embrace both of these complex belief structures, and that allow science and faith to co-exist peacefully.

I believe that there is a risk involved when it comes to preaching on the matter of Creation, or indeed on any doctrinal matter that produces strong divisions in a congregation. These matters should be addressed wherever possible in a manner that does not widen these divisions, nor push people away from the Church. Prof. Coyne seems to be of the opinion that those behind BioLogos are somehow shirking its stated duty by being somewhat reticent to “question Biblical literalism”.

Prof. Coyne appears to have forgotten what else is in BioLogos’ mission statement – and, tellingly, it occurs before the section quoted above describing BioLogos’ acceptance of evolution:

We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

Prof. Coyne is not looking at the work of BioLogos according to its stated priorities, and I believe there is a Biblical basis to Dr. Hunter’s statements (no matter how poorly expressed they may have been). There are two passages that spring to my mind after having watched Dr. Hunter’s video:

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. – Luke 17:2, KJV

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. – 1 Corinthians 8:7-13, KJV

It’s important to note a couple of things here. Firstly, from the words of Jesus Himself, we see that behaviour that causes His followers to fall away is treated as a matter of grave concern. Secondly, when Paul is discussing the matter of eating meat sacrificed to idols, he considers his own views to be right – he observes that eating meat from idols has no effect on him. (One might cheekily suggest that Paul is being somewhat scientific here!)

However, he considers it a sin against fellow-Christians to expect them to tolerate the eating of meat from idols if they believe it is wrong. I am quite happy to state that along with the people who operate BioLogos, Dr. Hunter, and Prof. Coyne, that I believe we are right when it comes to the age of the Earth and the origins of mankind.

I also believe that sometimes, believing you’re right is not enough.

As someone who, as a theistic evolutionist, has been involved in numerous different origins debates on message boards, and has spectated many others – I know from experience how disheartening it is on a personal and spiritual level when fellow-Christians, particularly those in positions of leadership, impose a false dichotomy on matters such as how God created. Some creationists, such as Kent Hovind, and Ken Ham, state that the faith of Christians who accept evolution is somehow flawed, or worse – outright false, or invalid.

It is critical that any attempt by groups such as BioLogos that purport to bring harmony and co-existence to this debate do not fall into the exact same trap of dismissing the opposing creationist view as apostasy, as doing so will result in exactly the same kind of discouragement among those Christians that hold to that view. This does not mean that beliefs are not questioned or should not be questioned – indeed, the Bible also actively encourages us to do so:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. – 1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV

What is to be avoided here is the absolutism that Prof. Coyne seems to mistakenly believe that BioLogos should be advancing; or indeed any other behaviour that might cause those brothers and sisters who do not disagree with us to fall away. Otherwise, all that will result is yet another group of isolationist Christian believers, stubbornly convinced its own way is correct – the disadvantages of which are unfortunately already well-known to many of us

Tim Kimberley over at the Parchment and Pen blog, is featuring a series based on the top ten Biblical discoveries in archaeology.

I intend to link to them from here, and so here is the first offering, starting at number ten on the list:

Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology – #10 Assyrian Lachish Reliefs

After a beautiful service at my local cathedral I went strawberry picking and that’s where I came across my miraculous strawberry man:

This is obviously a ‘sign’ of some kind for mankind.

Do you think I should contact the media…oh..too late, I’ve just eaten him and he tasted soo good!

On a serious note…..nah not really…..

I love this, courtesy of Joel:

I tell you what, C Michael Patton is such a gifted encourager and his honest observational insights are second to none.

Anyway, I’m cross-posting his latest entitled; Are You a Misfit in the Church?

This one really “spoke” to me as I’ve often felt like a misfit in church and what makes matters worse, is that I look around and see a whole bunch of misfits and oddballs, and then I view myself as a misfit amongst misfits, in other words, I don’t even fit with the misfits….horrible feeling……

Here’s his post for your enjoyment and to know once and for all that you are most certainly not alone:

Are You a Misfit in the Church?

Do you feel out of place as a Christian? I suspect you sometimes do. I think everyone, at some time in their lives, feels like a misfit within the Church. I do. Often. Believe me, I have my stories.

We are all different kinds of Christians. We are different due to upbringing, personalities, genetics, differing passions, and the like. Many times we will get discouraged because of our differences. Sometimes we ask ourselves “What is wrong with me?”

Here are some of the feelings that you might have.

I don’t like to fellowship with other believers very much, whats wrong with me?

I haven’t felt the presence of God like others do, what’s wrong with me?

I don’t love to read my Bible like other Christians do, what’s wrong with me?

The Lord’s supper/Eucharist is not a spiritual experience for me like it is for others, what’s wrong with me?

I am not very emotional, what’s wrong with me?

I hate the way Christians talk, what’s wrong with me?

I can’t keep my kids under control, what’s wrong with me?

I am not very nice and talkative, what’s wrong with me?

I dread going to prayer groups, what’s wrong with me?

I ask too many questions and have too many doubts, what’s wrong with me?

I don’t have a good marriage like other Christians do, what’s wrong with me?

I am scared to death to pray in public, what’s wrong with me?

I find it hard to pray for other people, what’s wrong with me?

I don’t like to study, what’s wrong with me?

I am addicted to so many things, what’s wrong with me?

I am so pessimistic about things, what’s wrong with me?

I am depressed all the time, what’s wrong with me?

The simple fact is that we are not yet dressed for heaven. Not only this, but we are all wearing different clothes. Not only this, but the Holy Spirit does not seem intent to dress us in a uniform way. Not only this, but some of us feel like we are wearing our underwear on the outside of our pants. Yeah, it is awkward.

While we are trying to be molded into the likeness of Christ, don’t beat yourself up too much for not fitting a mold of expression. The church is a body of believers that are following Christ imperfectly. Our expressions (dress, prayer life,  interests, personalities, sins we struggle with, and the like) cause us to look and feel very different inside. When we walk into church we do everything we can to put on our “church” personality. But inside we are different. We are scared. We feel like misfits.

Stage one: We think to ourselves, “Boy, I hope they don’t find me out.” We think that the gig will be up at any time. But we feel we must live with this tension to do this thing called “church.”

Stage two: This is where you begin to conform to this double standard. You live with the dichotomy of who you are inside and who you are when you are with “churchy” people.

Stage three: This is where the Cool-Aid is well into your system and you are now pressuring others to drink the same.

The fact is that we are all misfits. We need to act like it. We don’t conform to church, but we conform to Christ. By admitting our “misfitness” we will not take away from fellowship. By admitting our awkwardness, we help others find a home. By admitting our inability to fit in we lose sight of “fitting in” all-together. By being beggars of grace, we become a house of grace together. There we go. We have the church. A house of misfits looking for grace, mercy, and forgiveness. I have come to think that the only misfits are those who are comfortable wearing the veneer of “churchiness.”

What are some of the ways that you feel like a misfit in church?

I noted a blog post yesterday by Justin Taylor, promoting a free online course on Islam, and it piqued my interest enough to contemplate sharing this with you, and then I completely forgot.

Today, Andy Cheung of King’s Evangelical Divinity School has picked up on this and blogged it, and so I’m taking this as a ‘sign’ that I should certainly bring this to your attention:

Here’s what Andy had to say:

One of you dear readers needs to check this out….

It would seem that it’s open season on BioLogos right now.

Following on from all of the controversy last week, we have a fresh attack on BioLogos courtesy of Jerry Coyne of Why Evolution is True, and predictably featured on Dawkins’ website.

This week the jolly assailment revolves around the following Biologos Video, featuring Dr. Joel Hunter, entitled: The Danger of Preaching on Genesis.

Here it is:

I was planning to spend time this morning carefully fisking and rebutting Jerry Coyne’s criticisms of this video and the BioLogos synopsis, however, to be honest, I find myself a little depressed and burdened with a “what’s the bloomin’ point” frame of mind. I blame the Methodist Conference for this.

I’ll let you review the criticisms if you can be bothered and leave you with the general observation that I can’t help but notice the incongruity of scientific atheists, pulling out their claws against scientific theistic evolutionists, or to use the pejorative description “accommodationists” as imposed by such opponents. Surely there are plenty of fundie science rejecting groups they could target, I mean, why attack a group that is attempting  to promote the virtues of science within Christianity?

As it happens, I did pen a few thoughts on this paradox:

eChurch: P Z Myers & Phil Johnson still putting the boot in to BioLogos

Thought for the day: Nothing will ever please a militant atheist, so don’t bother to try.

Taking the lead from Michael Patton, beliefNet, have posed the question, what things did you used to believe, that you have left behind as false?

So, I thought I’d join suit and ask if you have any beliefs that used to be of paramount importance, that now seem in error or even slightly ridiculous?

I have to confess that I have many such examples of this, but I’ll kick off with the first one, which is, I used to believe that you had to hold to a very literalistic reading of Genesis.

What about you?

Jim West of Zwinglius Redivivu was recently asked this pointed question:

Dear Jim,

Might I ask, what do you see as the value or purpose of blogs?  Do they have any use other than just announcements and that sort of thing?  I apologize if you have answered this before.

Al

And I so appreciated and enjoyed his response, I thought I’d share it with you:

Dear Al,

If I might put it this way (since this is actually a question that comes up from time to time)- in my estimation blogs, blogging, and biblical scholarship are like classical music.

Blog posts are like Divertimenti; light, airy, quick, and entertaining as well as informative.  But they aren’t capable of the full ‘development of theme’ that other musical genres are.  Successful blogs are those which inform and entertain.  Unsuccessful blogs are those which either don’t entertain or are not informative.

Blogging is like conducting.  The better conductors know both their audience and their orchestra.  They know what they can bear, what they are interested in, and what they are capable of.  They push the envelope, but they never burst it.

And biblical scholarship is like a symphony- a fully developed piece which contains a beginning, a middle and an end.  Biblical scholarship belongs in printed media.  Sustained argument and the full discussion of and exposition of technical and complex ideas cannot be accomplished in any other way and the deeper and more profound and important the subject, the more worthy it is of full exposition.  So, in a symphony the themes are introduced in the opening section and then developed fully throughout.  Likewise, scholarly publications.

Music isn’t just Divertimenti or Symphony; it’s both and more.  Biblical scholars worth their salt engage in both styles just as musicians are able to play both short light pieces and long complex pieces.

Biblical scholars who don’t blog or who see no value in it are missing a very important opportunity to engage the larger public.  Pure and simple, their fixation on the ivory tower makes them uninteresting and boring.  Blog postings are capable of getting corrective word out when nonsense appears in public view (like the Noah’s ark stupidity we’ve all just witnessed recently).  But they can’t and shouldn’t attempt to cover everything.  Everything can and should only be covered in print.

Similarly, biblical bloggers who only blog and who never publish; who never go deeper, are missing out just as much in making a contribution to the guild.

Blogging and publishing are two sides of the same coin.  Blogging opens the scholar up to the public and the public up to scholarship; and publication opens the writer up to scrutiny from his peers and correction when error appears.

Only the short sighted, blinkered, or self absorbed reject one or the other of these important avenues for the dissemination of scholarship ‘down’ to the people and ‘up’ to our peers and colleagues.   Good musicians can do Symphonies and Divertimenti.  Good scholars can do good blogging and good publishing.  And they should.

Previous posts here, here,  here and here.

Cross-post Z-Word:

UK Methodists Should “Hang Their Heads” in Shame

Hat-Tip

Harry’s Place

Methodists Boycott Israel, Citing “New Covenant” With God

So, the Methodists now support a partial boycott of Israel. Israel is, as far as I can tell, the only country which they are boycotting.

The Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council said the Methodists’ annual conference should “hang its head in shame” for passing a policy which calls for a boycott of goods from “illegal” Israeli West Bank settlements and blames Israeli occupation as the “key hindrance” to Middle East peace.

Lord Sacks said the implications of the decision would “reverberate across the hitherto harmonious relationship between the faith communities in the UK”.

He blasted the report as “unbalanced, factually and historically flawed” and offering “no genuine understanding of one of the most complex conflicts in the world today. Many in both communities will be deeply disturbed”.

Delegates at the conference in Portsmouth overwhelmingly passed every recommendation of the report, which also included a call to review whether Zionism was compatible with Methodist beliefs.

The seconder of the “Zionism” motion is Stephen Leah, a Methodist vicar in charge of the York PSG:

I personally would like to have divestment going a little bit further into the full boycott of Israel, but I know how much I can get away with in the churches sometimes. [...] Churches are paranoid about being critical of Israel sometimes, they want to be balanced all the time, we must put pressure on church leaders.

It is absolutely vitally important to understand the theology behind the Methodists’ position. The proposer of the motion is the Rev Nichola Jones of Friends of Sabeel UK. Watch her explanation, couched in a very particular religious logic, here (at 73 mins):

In the Bible we learn of the Chosen People. Who are they and what were they chosen for? Genesis tells us again & again that God chooses Abraham and makes a covenant with Abraham & his heirs: a covenant being a two-sided agreement with obligations on both parties, like marriage……Of course, Israel today is not the same as Israel in the Bible: in the Bible, Israel refers to the people of Abraham’s descendants, who are in covenant with God. Israel today is a modern, secular state, created in 1948…….

For years I cherished the Galatian text…now I read it properly: ‘In Christ there is no longer male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek (we could say Jew or Arab): we are all one in Christ.’ We are heirs of Abraham, and so inheritors of the promise of Abraham. Jesus, who makes with us a new covenant which transforms us utterly, never speaks of the land or owning it: he speaks of the Kingdom & joining it and invites us to do so. He teaches us God is not a racist God with favourites, but God loves all his children & blesses them

This is an expression of a Christian religious doctrine: Supercessionism. The logic is that Jews were originally in covenant with God. However, Jews breached their Covenant. Therefore, God sent Jesus to earth to create a new Covenant, not with the Jews, but with the Christians.

For good measure, the Rev Nichola Jones implies that for Jews to continue to claim that there is an extant Covenant between them and God is “racist”.

Here’s a question for you. Do you think that religious doctrine makes a good basis for political action? If you heard a ’settler’ type claiming that Jews must retain sovereignty over the whole of the West Bank, because God had promised it to him, would you challenge it? I would.

Now, as an atheist, I have no problem with Supercessionism. I don’t believe that God did make a covenant with Man through Noah or Jesus, or with the Jews through Moses. If Christians want to believe that they’re party to a New Covenant with God, one which renders Judaism obsolete, then they are at liberty to do so. Although that belief has been connected with the oppression and murder of Jews in the past, it is not inevitable that it will do so again.

However, what the Methodists have done is to base a boycott on the theological position that Jewish religious beliefs in their Covenant are racist, and that in any case, Jews have breached their Covenant with God, as a result of which they are no longer the “heirs of Abraham”. This is the mirror image of the position of the religious settler.

The justification for the continued existence of the State of Israel is not theological. Rather, it is a product of a United Nations resolution, and the right in international law to self determination. Moreover, we know perfectly well what would happen to the Jews of Israel were Hamas to take power, because they’ve made that very clear in their own Covenant:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

There is no discussion of Hamas’ genocidal antisemitic theology in the report on the basis of which the Methodists took their decision to boycott.. That is because the only theology that these Methodists were interested in was the version of Christian thinking that explains why the spiritual claims of Judaism are wrong.

We’re used to boycotts being pushed by Communist groups, who base their position on a critique of capitalism (in which Jewish self determination is a particular problem). We’ve also seen then being advanced by Islamist groups, who have their own theology (in which Jewish self determination is also seen as a particular problem).

However, is it not quite remarkable to hear the proposer of a motion, at the Methodist Conference, justify practical political action in terms of Jewish loss of “Choseness”?   I really do wonder whether any of those voting for the motion based their decision on a recollection that Jews are said to have procured the death of Jesus, after which they proclaimed “His blood be on us, and on our children”.  Am I wrong to do so?

I appreciate that the theological dimension of this affair may not ring alarm bells with other atheists. Atheists, generally speaking, tend to underestimate the extent to which religious justifications matter to believers. That is a fatal mistake. Theology shapes the way that many religious people see the world. It will be natural to people like the Rev Nichola Jones to understand the Middle East conflict, not essentially as a land dispute between two peoples, but rather as a great supernatural struggle between Jews clinging to an old bargain with God, which they have betrayed and rendered void, and those of the New Covenant.

This is what seems to be happening now:

In a blistering joint statement, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council said the report’s authors had “abused the goodwill of the Jewish community, which tried to engage on this issue, only to find our efforts were treated as an unwelcome distraction”.

The conference “swallowed hook, line and sinker a report full of basic historical inaccuracies, deliberate misrepresentations and distortions of Jewish theology and Israeli policy,” they said.

Calling the outcome “a very sad day” for Methodist-Jewish relations”, they said it would “cause the enemies of peace and reconciliation to cheer from the sidelines”.

I can understand their fury.

I know that there are many Christians who are also sickened by the decision by the Methodists to punish Israelis and nobody but Israelis, on this theological basis.

Quite honestly, I cannot see how Jewish religious institutions can continue to engage with the Methodists.

UPDATE

The Methodists justify their stance on Comment is Free

Further Links today:

CIFWatch – Ben White’s latest anti-Israel “analysis”

CIFWatch – Europe Will Never Forgive Israel For The Holocaust