t f p g+ YouTube icon

The Body of Christ in Science, Part 2

Bookmark and Share

February 11, 2014 Tags: Christian Unity, Christianity & Science - Then and Now, Science as Christian Calling

Today's entry was written by Todd L. Lake. 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.

The Body of Christ in Science, Part 2

(Continued from yesterday’s post)

The biblical view of creation thus gave birth to science, but of course Genesis 1 and 2 are pre-scientific.  That is not to say they are bad science, but that they are not science at all, since science became part of the human story three millennia later.  Genesis does not need or want to be taken on scientific terms, but on its own terms.

This was the understanding of Genesis that existed at the time Origin of Species burst upon the scene.  It was the evangelical Asa Gray at Harvard who corresponded with Darwin and helped introduce his ideas in the U.S.  He was one of the world’s leading botanists, and saw no contradiction between science and his beliefs.  The one who did see such a contradiction was the Unitarian Louis Agassiz, Gray’s Harvard colleague.  Agassiz felt that the wasteful nature of evolution was not in character with the God he believed in.  But Gray accepted that in human affairs “the road is narrow and the gate is straight that leads to eternal life and few are those who find it.”  Thus, an evolutionary process where much that occurs is wasteful presented him with no theological second thoughts.  The history of evolution’s warm reception by many evangelicals in the first decades after Darwin’s theory became known is recounted in David Livingstone’s Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought.

As the twentieth century dawned, the theologians of Princeton Seminary engaged the issue of evolution.  It was professors Hodge and Warfield who coined the term “inerrancy” to establish a standard term to denote a high view of biblical authority.  Yet it was precisely these first inerrantists who wrote articles that made clear that evolution and inerrancy were not enemies.

Then in 1910, a project was begun to define orthodox Protestant faith in the face of assaults from modernists who denied miracles, the atonement, and other central aspects of the Christian faith.  This resulted in a multi-volume series of booklets entitled “The Fundamentals,” whence we get the term “fundamentalism.”  So what did these foundational booklets say about evolution and creation?  The Fundamentalists stood with the Inerrantists in insisting that evolution and the highest view of biblical inspiration and authority were compatible.

It turns out that for centuries prior to Darwin, then at the time of Darwin, and again after several decades of digesting the implications of evolution, the Church did not see an inherent contradiction between science and biblical faith.

Much has been written about the rise of anti-evolution convictions among conservative Protestantism.  George Marsden’s Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and Ronald Numbers’ The Creationists:  From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design give a very helpful account of how and why the modern exaltation of scientific knowledge as the only true knowledge led some believers to try to beat the scientists at their own game by proving that Genesis was scientifically true.

My heartfelt concern about this issue comes from my years as a pastor in Cambridge, MA.  I got to know many very good scientists who became leaders of our church as they got degrees from MIT and Harvard.  One was a molecular geneticist who was a Malaysian citizen of Chinese ancestry.  He came from a country where it was illegal to share one’s faith in Christ with Malay Muslims.  Yet he and his friends risked imprisonment to bear witness to their Lord and Savior.

So it makes me both sad and angry that some within the anti-evolution community, from Young Earthers to ID defenders, would impugn the integrity and backbone of scientists who are Christians.  My friend braved the threat of arrest to stand up for Jesus.  It is insulting to even hint that he would not gladly follow the evidence wherever it led in science, even if it meant disputing evolution.  As he himself pointed out to me, if indeed he or any scientist could do work that led to overturning evolutionary theory, they would likely be in line for a Nobel Prize.  That is how science works, by in the end celebrating the overturning of received theories in light of new evidence.

I am not in any position to judge scientific theories, either pro- or anti-evolution.  But that is why God has put us in the Body of Christ, so none of us needs to claim omni-competence.  I studied Hebrew, so when I wrote that “yom” meant “day,” I was working within my field.  And I studied theology and church history, and thus could write about the beginning of inerrancy and fundamentalism.  Nevertheless, you should not trust me to make pronouncements on science.  If we believe that God has distributed gifts throughout the Body of Christ, then we are unwise not to heed the thoughtful conclusions of our sisters and brothers in Christ with gifts in science.  If the overwhelming number of these faithful and sincere followers of Jesus say evolution is true, then we honor the Body of Christ by heeding them.

Others trained in the natural sciences can and should challenge the consensus opinion if they feel the scientific evidence demands it.  But the wider Christian community, those whose expertise is in law or engineering or theology or English literature, should give deference to the consensus opinion while being open to hearing the thoughts of the dissenters.  For it is indeed the case that dissenters can be right, just as it can be the case that they are wrong.  What is not fair is for non-scientists to present a distinctly minority position as the authentically Christian one.

I alluded earlier to what I suspect drives this very recent movement to enlist science in trying to buttress claims that the Bible is true.  We live in an age that often assumes that all truth must be amenable to being proved scientifically.  The unstated assumption is that if God is truly active in the creation of the world, there should be some traces of that which science can discover.  But notice that this supposition does not grow out of the Bible, but is being imposed upon it.

It is not a silly idea, but neither is it one that need be true.  Take the case of Jesus.  We know that he was fully God and fully human.  If we had some of his DNA, would we be able to analyze it and deduce this fact? Of course not.  Neither should we assume that if we analyze the creation scientifically we will find evidence that God made it.  Of course we know that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and “In the beginning was the Word…and the Word became flesh.”  These are true statements, but there is no reason to insist that they are accessible by science.

I hope that we non-scientists will quit second-guessing our brothers and sisters in the faith who are scientists.  If we do want to let the minority report on evolution be heard in our churches, we are duty-bound to be sure that we give proportionally more time to the majority report.  Scientists and their work are too often maligned by the anti-evolution forces that dominate the Christian airwaves and bookstores, the homeschooling publishers and Christian conferences.  I want Christians in the sciences to know that they are fulfilling their role in the Body of Christ.  Just like their forebears, they are engaged in helping us understand the world God has actually created.  May they be honored in the Church for all they do to the greater glory of God.

 


Todd Lake is Vice President for Spiritual Development at Belmont University in Nashville, TN. He has a B.A. in German Studies from Harvard, earned an M.Div. from Southern Seminary, and a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston College. He has served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Paraguay, as pastor of Cambridgeport Baptist Church in Cambridge, MA and as Dean for University Life at Baylor University.

< Previous post in series


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
Jon Garvey - #84495

February 11th 2014

If the overwhelming number of these faithful and sincere followers of Jesus say evolution is true, then we honor the Body of Christ by heeding them.

I’ve been trying to think why this strapline makes me uneasy. In the end I think it’s because it appears to suggest that the consensus of Christians in a particular profession a has particular standing other than the consensus of atheists in the same profession: the wisdom of the Church is in the things of the Spirit.

why should they? In Victorian times the consensus of Christian doctors was that bleeding was a useful treatment.

In early modern times, the consensus of astronomers - including Christians - was that astrology was a valid science. Would it have been wrong for a non-astronomer to doubt it? The fact is not that astrology was right or wrong, but that majority Christian astronomer support for it was simply irrelevant to its truth, since Christianity had little or no influenbce on how you did a star chart.


Jon Garvey - #84496

February 11th 2014

Sorry, part of my post was lost, but it makes substantial sense as it is - the second paragraph owned up to my being just as fallible as a Christian doctor in following the majority of the profession in beliefs now proven mistakes as my unbelieving colleagues. Why should that not be so?


Matthew Winegar - #84506

February 12th 2014

I agree, that atheist scientists in their area of expertise should be deferred to, concerning that area, but obviously not where they go beyond that (for example, when they talk about theology).  However, I don’t think this point about honoring the Body of Christ necessarily implies that Christian scientists are more trustworthy (again, concerning science).  To me, it adresses concerns about divisions within the body of Christ, over an issue that is really out of scope concerning Christian life and fellowship.  Also, the point seems to be emphasizing that there are Christians who accept (and study) science, and they have a role in the body of Christ just as a pastor might.


herms7 - #84651

March 6th 2014

This article should humble any thoughtful Christian wrestling with the origins issue. When there are well-meaning, sincere Christians in the Young Earth, Old Earth and Evolutionary Creation camps with strong arguments against the other positions, this should be cause for humility and slowness to speak prematurely.

I am challenged to understand more of the BioLogos position in their own words, not just from the likes of CMI.

Thank you for slowing me down!


Page 1 of 1   1