Ephesians 4:7-16: Moving the Science/Faith Discussion Forward, Part 4

"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Today's entry was written by Ross Hastings. Ross Hastings is an associate professor of Pastoral Theology at Regent College, Vancouver British Columbia. Hastings teaches in the areas of the theology and spirituality of mission, pastoral theology and ethics. He has served as a pastor in Kingston, ON, Burnaby, BC, and Montreal, QC, and for eleven years as the senior pastor of Peace Portal Alliance Church in White Rock, BC. He has earned two PhDs, one in organo-metallic chemistry at Queen’s University (ON), and the other in theology at St. Andrew’s University, in his native Scotland. His theological dissertation is a comparative study of the Trinitarian theology of Jonathan Edwards and Karl Barth and is in the publication process.

Today’s post is the fourth and final post in a series that looks at the implications of Ephesians 4:7-16 for moving the science/faith discussion forward. In his first post, Hastings grounded his discussion in Paul’s vision of love and unity among brothers and sisters in Christ. In his next two posts, Hastings addressed the first three of nine “front edge” issues, i.e., those areas of discussion where a “theology of creation” can and must move forward.

Below Hastings continues by listing briefly the remaining six “front edge” issues, the first dealing with Paul’s understanding of Adam and the others focusing on various hermeneutical and philosophical issues. Of course, each of these points is worthy of a lengthy treatment, but bringing them all together under one heading provides a helpful synopsis of the kinds of issues before us.

The discussion over science and faith—specifically evolution and Christianity—has a history of conflict in recent generations. In both of his blog series, Hastings reminds us that there are many unavoidable and pressing issues that Christians must address. Above all, those issues must be addressed from the foundation of deep Christian unity in the crucified and risen Christ. Without that foundation, science/faith issue will only continue to be framed as a debate rather than a discussion.

4. The problem, if evolutionary creation is true, of the strong Pauline theology of the headship of the human race under the first and last Adams (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15).

If the first Adam is not historically literal, or a community, then are we running the risk of compromising the historicity of Jesus?

Paul may, like Moses, be accommodating the view of origins of his time. James G. Dunn, a well-respected NT scholar in the Pentecostal tradition, has commented that Paul’s putting together of a character from story with a character from history (the first and the last Adams) is not problematic.

My own tendency is to believe that at some moment there was a coronation of an evolved single human, who was by being brought into conscious relationship with God, endowed with the image of God. There are of course, serious problems with this view, but I cannot solve those here, and simply point to it as an area of ongoing research.

5. The problem of death before the Fall if evolution did occur.

Interestingly, Augustine, who articulated the doctrine of original sin most clearly, did not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and he even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. It is not just evolutionary creationists who need to grapple with the reality of animal death before the fall. Progressive creationists must do so also.

The primary solution to the coming of death upon humanity after the Fall is that this is a spiritual death, that is separation from God of the inner person or the whole person after the “resurrection of the unjust.” To suggest that there is clarity in this area is to be overly optimistic, I think, and I have not yet a heard a solution that satisfies me completely.

6. The intriguing issue of the priority of the incarnation in the purposes of God.

This has a bearing on #4 above, in that it makes the issue of who Adam was a lot less important. Was creation for the incarnation, or was incarnation for creation? Duns Scotus proposed “the primacy of Christ” and creation for incarnation, not vice versa. Having arrived at the supralapsarian belief that God planned the creation with its reconciliation already in mind (i.e., the cross of Christ was not an afterthought with God, see Acts 2:23; Rev.13:8; 1 Pet. 1:18-20), I am in favor of the notion of incarnation before creation in the mind of God. This does not reduce creation in its value, but rather gloriously unites the Logos with the creation in ways that seem consonant with Johannine expressions.

7. Clarifying Enculturation

I have referred to this already. The accusation that is often meted out in the heat of debate on origins, especially of those on the literalistic (not “literal” a la Walton and Waltke) side towards evolutionary creationists, is that the latter have sold out to scientistic culture. Just how much credibility can we give science and scientists given the influence of the Enlightenment and its presuppositions over the past 300-400 years? The evolutionary creationists will likely respond by asking “will the enculturated scientists please stand up!” The literalistic ways of interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 are actually, as we have noted above, the result of the influence of Enlightenment or Modern thinking on fundamentalism. All this requires ongoing irenic thought and discussion.

8. Reaching agreement based on realism about what levels of certainty can ever be known in some of the areas of this complex interface of science, biblical scholarship and theology.

9. Finding ways to engage in mission that assert that God created but offer various thoughtful options about how he created it.

Countering the popular assumptions of the Modern age that science and faith are at odds is a daunting task that must unite us. I suggest that whenever we give serious intellectual rigor to the specific area of the origin of the universe, whatever our viewpoint, we go a long way towards overcoming this gap. To also know what the limitations of our viewpoint are and to separate it from higher order confessional theology will lead to some progress towards removing this as a stumbling block for thinking people seeking God.

Offering a variety of options that include evolutionary creation will, I think, show progress in this regard. I conclude here with Augustine’s wise words on this matter:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.