“This is 2,300 year old wisdom from the Book of Ecclesiastes that seems to very concisely understand the water cycle. That water evaporates from the ocean, gets stored in the atmosphere via clouds, comes down as snow or rain, and when it comes down on the mountain it’s often stored there, as snow is gathered via groundwater, streams, and rivers, and then through the river, returns to the ocean, again. What a beautiful, complex, interdependent, wonderfully mysterious way of providing water, life to the land … But what does this beautiful system teach us, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, about who we are? What is your word, God, about this river, that runs through the center of where we live?”

In this sermon, Pastor Jon Van Sloten of New Hope Church in Calgary, Alberta, describes how he set out to learn where the water from the Bow River, near their home in the Rocky Mountains, actually comes from. He interviewed scientists who study hydrology and have learned a curious truth about how this particular river keeps a steady flow the full year round. This modulating geophysical “safeguard,” which allows the Rocky Mountains to hold water and let it out at a slow trickle rather than a deluge during the annual snowmelt, speaks to Van Sloten of God’s grace at work in the world—grace we can’t see with the naked eye, but is there all the same.

George Murphy notes that while the science and theology dialogue has grown considerably in the past 30 years, much of it remains at an academic level. While it provides an important foundation, that alone is not going to do the job that the church needs it to do—to come out in Christian education in parishes, in preaching, in pastoral care, in the social action of the church.

During his seminary education, Dr. Murphy also gained a deeper understanding of Luther’s theology of the cross, and he realized that it’s really the best way to approach the science and theology dialogue. The theology of the cross helps us deal not only with an issue like evolution, and but more generally with the whole question of how God acts in the world and how we know God.

Most science and theology dialogue is restricted to discussion of creation and origins. But at the core of the Gospel of is not simply the doctrine of creation—it’s salvation, it’s the work of Christ in saving humanity and in saving the whole creation.

First posted April 29, 2012

1. We are a world that longs for goodness and beauty, whether we are believers or not.

2. The data from emerging neuroscience and attachment research points us to a world of goodness and beauty.

3. This same data reflects and energizes the biblical narrative. Creation itself points us to the very story God is telling.

4. One of the most integral processes—that helps us get to truth and beauty—involves the changing (and renewal) of our minds. The renewal of our minds is a subset of the renewal of everything. God is on a mission of complete renewal, albeit on his timetable.

In this mission for renewal, one of the most important aspects is the interpersonal experience of being known. We change primarily not by what we know, but by how we are known. We live in a culture that is really good at knowing things, but not so good at being known.

5. Our first reaction is likely to be, “How will knowing this stuff change me?” But the biblical narrative is not just about us as individuals, it is about a world of mercy and justice. In order for us to have mercy and justice, we don’t do it primarily as individuals, we do it as institutions. God’s renewal is not just about changing us, it is about changing everything.

See part 2 for the second half of Dr. Thompson's presentation

Today's video features Michael Ramsden of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures.

In today’s video, Michael Ramsden discusses the importance and meaning of mystery in the Bible. It does not come from ignorance, as the word is often used in modern times, but rather it is mystery born out of insight and wonder, one that is informed by understanding the world around us. As Ramsden notes, Jesus’ use of children to describe the nature of faith isn’t meant to emphasize their ignorance, but rather their sense of trust for those who love them. Likewise, we should not be afraid to search out answers, as if knowledge will lessen our faith in God. Rather we should trust that our explorations will only strengthen our understanding in Him.

In today’s video, Pastor Brian McClaren discusses the idea of the “slippery slope”. As he notes, the metaphor itself is problematic, because we often assume that we are on the top of the slope to begin with, when in fact changing our views may help us ascend the slope, or to reach a new peak of understanding on the other side.

He also notes two dangers that face the science and faith dialogue. On one side is excessive confidence, when we are so sure of being right that we refuse to consider other ideas. But being too afraid of excessive confidence can lead to an insufficient confidence, where we feel incapable of knowing anything for sure. McClaren proposes that what Christians need, rather, is proper confidence, the confidence that we are moving ahead yet still willing to learn. This, he says, is what it means to be a disciple: to be interested in the truth and always learning, but always willing to be pensive again rather than set in our current knowledge.

In this video Conversation, senior biblical fellow Peter Enns asks Rev. N.T. Wright to respond to a common question of readers regarding the disconnect between science and religion. Specifically, he asks Wright why he thinks there is such controversy in evangelicalism about evolution. Is this a “culture war” issue?

Wright responds by noting that this is a very America-specific issue. In England, very few people have these same hang-ups about evolution, except where education and movements have come over from America and have gotten into British subculture —much to the dismay of many who think otherwise.

As a possible explanation for this issue, Wright points to the American conservative/liberal split which happened a century ago with the modernist/fundamentalist controversy. The divide was expanded with the Scopes trials and, he points out, has echoes of some of the old civil war mindset—that is, that people in the south are ill-informed and fundamentalist while people in the north are too liberal and doctrinally soft. Though these are only stereotypes, Wright notes, there are still enough examples of them that the caricatures stick.

People then project those divisions onto issues of science and faith and cast those that believe in science as secularists and those that believe in God as being anti-science. These characterizations are flawed, however, since modern science emerged from people of deep faith that wanted to explain the natural world.

Peter Enns wonders if one way past a combat mentality would be for Americans to have a better cultural awareness as to how we have come to this place and Wright agrees that this would be a good thing. “We all see the world distorted,” he says, “and that’s why we need one another, to be honest.”

• Get Embed Code
  
  <iframe class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="560" height="340" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EPz5zSrzjvM" frameborder="0"></iframe>

In this video Conversation, Peter Enns asks author and theologian N.T. Wright to respond to a question from a BioLogos Forum reader about the implications of the relationship between politics and religion within the evangelical movement.

The reader notes that presently in the world of evangelical Christianity there seems to be a great suspicion about becoming too politically liberal but not about becoming too conservative. There seems to be a “slippery slope” argument toward the left, but not toward the right. This environment may lead to those on the left side of the evangelical spectrum to think about leaving the Church altogether—or for them to keep silent and not have any influence. Enns asks Wright for his thoughts on this issue.

Wright points out that the intermarriage of political and religious thought is much more common in the United States than in other places in the world. In contrast to American constructs—in England, for example, people who are very conservative theologically are generally more progressive in terms of their social and political views.

Therefore, what would be helpful within American evangelicalism is to uncouple the artificial connections that people have made between Christianity and political agendas. There are insights that we need to get from the Bible we don’t normally expect, says Wright, and from places and people in the Church that we might not expect. Otherwise, he cautions, all we are doing is substituting our framework and judging people according to how they fit into our framework rather than by what is actually the given at the heart of our faith.

• Get Embed Code
  
  <iframe class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="560" height="340" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BWHhyhhw1EU" frameborder="0"></iframe>

In this video Conversation, Joel Hunter offers his thoughts on the challenges of preaching on controversial topics and offers advice to pastors who consider introducing these complicated discussions into their own congregations.

“I have a basic motto,” says Hunter, “Never underestimate people’s insecurities.” He explains that even people who are seemingly confident in most areas of their lives often have significant insecurities in anything that might upset or challenge their status quo. Thus, if a pastor tries to bring discussions of science and theology or creation care to the pulpit, this might be met with some resistance by congregants that are looking for scriptural direction and affirmation for issues they are dealing with as individuals. Broadening the scope of the discussion to include something like evolution might then be perceived with skepticism or fear, because it is not the kind of message many are searching for.

Hunter notes that as a pastor himself, he understands this perspective of church members just as he understands the predicament that pastors find themselves in when they think about how to initiate difficult discussions. Most churches are simply trying to survive from week to week, says Hunter, so there is tremendous insecurity on the part of pastors who worry that teaching controversy might lead to their exit.

Pastors are pastors , however, because they care about people and their hurts and concerns. Therefore, one of the things that pastors need to do, Hunter suggests, is to consider all of the issues a congregation is dealing with—and determine how they can introduce controversial topics in such a way that it will help reassert God’s sovereignty and power.

Any introduction must consider the insecurities of the congregation as well as God’s great gift. When approached in this manner and the pastor has a bit of a history, it may be received better. If a congregation knows how strongly a pastor perceives scripture and Jesus Christ, that helps one address things that may make some people uneasy because the pastor has the benefit of a church’s trust that a solid track record may provide.

For more videos with Joel Hunter, visit our "Conversations" collection.

In this video Conversation, Joel Hunter talks about the need for courage—both from church leaders and believers—to engage in difficult conversations.

Hunter points out that when issues of faith become politicized and polarized, there will always be people who leave the churches that tackle these issues head on. Some people are simply looking for a noncontroversial worship experience, and if a pastor or minister addresses a controversial issue from a different perspective, they may not want to hear it.

Rather than being discouraged by this, Hunter argues that if teaching the controversy makes some believers that uneasy, they simply may not be ready to engage with the issues on such a level. “For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction,” says Hunter. “Any time you do something that is right, there is always a price.” However, Hunter reminds us these people are not lost to the Kingdom.

Hunter emphasizes the need for true courage, which he defined as “going places that the church has never been before” and finding God in places where we haven’t yet looked.

For more videos with Joel Hunter, visit our "Conversations" collection.

In this video Conversation, Joel Hunter acknowledges the risk that pastors take when preaching on Genesis—and in particular, when they approach it with an attitude of humility, allowing the possibility that the text was not meant to be understood in literal terms.

Hunter notes that a large number of congregants in our churches today are uncomfortable with the literal narrative of creation in six twenty-four hour days. In fact, many believers are open to the notion that God used alternative means of creation. Those with this viewpoint are not convinced of the all-or-nothing mentality that pervades contemporary evangelicalism, but rather, they see the possibility of evolutionary creation as a testament to God’s abilities.

Hunter emphasizes, however, that one must avoid being dismissive or derisive of those who do hold to a literalist view of Genesis because for some, reconsidering the traditional creation narrative introduces questions to which they are unsure of how to respond. Many with this viewpoint feel that if Genesis can’t be understood in straightforward terms, then we cannot know how to read the story of the Resurrection—as a historical account, or simply as a metaphor? Questions like this have the potential to cause them to wonder if they must now question the whole truth of Scripture.

Without “bullying” literalists into a new scriptural interpretation, we should still provide Christians with the space—and permission—to more completely consider the “fullness” and the “great mystery” of God.

In today’s video, Daniel Harrell reflects on the rigors of the scientific method, reminding us that what gives scientific discoveries their weight is not the individuals who make them, but the methods of science themselves, which instill in us a level of confidence.  

Harrell points out that we often trust the methods of science with our own health by taking prescription drugs in confidence, but are unwilling to trust the corroborative evidence of biology, paleontology, cosmology, chemistry and anthropology.

"It's as close to a scientific fact as we can have", says Harrell.  To dismiss the evidence for evolution without examining it closely, he says, is "just irresponsible."

Editor's Note (4/8/2010): We have updated the video to correct a slight editing glitch.

In today’s video Conversation, Dr. Greg Boyd discusses the basic truths that provide the framework for Christian belief and distinguishes them from the potentially divisive issues that do not compromise what he refers to as the “non-negotiable” truths.

Boyd lists the following as non-negotiables: the basic storyline of scripture, which includes the progression of creation, the fall, the redemption, and the eschaton—the final hope. There are also some attendant theological perspectives that Christians must accept. For example:

Who is God? He is the God revealed in Jesus Christ and the Triune God.

How are we redeemed? We are redeemed through God’s grace.

In the last century, however, many in the church have lost the ability to be gracious about our disagreements on negotiable issues.  While having to wrestle with diverse thoughts and ideas in the church is nothing new, it seems that we have lost the ability to discuss these issues lovingly. This is especially true among conservative Protestants in the last century.

Boyd comments that this spirit of generosity is one of the saddest things that the church has lost—our lack of tolerance with each other carries over into society. Consequently, many others see Christians as intolerant and judgmental because we are not at all representing the graciousness and love and service of Jesus Christ.

This lack of graciousness is not the beauty of Jesus Christ. And we need to get back to the beauty of Jesus Christ.

In this brief video conversation, Os Guinness, author and founder of the Trinity Forum, suggests that the religious right might have largely created the current culture war that has science and faith as its core antagonists.

He offers that while this culture war, in some cases, a world issue, in particular it is an American problem that has emerged in the last several decades. Guinness points out that religion and the religious right now makes up “the holy war frontline” of the culture war and the perceived discord between science and faith is a part of that. As a result, there is a large amount of fear, misrepresentation, and demonizing of opponents.

Guinness observes that in many ways the New Atheists have been partially created by the religious right. Historically, in America, there was no “vehement repudiation” of religion until fairly recently with the political involvement of the religious right (described in Kevin Phillips’ 2006 book American Theocracy).

Initially the concern for nonbelievers was the intersection of religion and public life, but now it is religion itself. Part of that powerful argument which rejects religion is that religious people have such a poor view of science—and are therefore characterized as uninformed, out-of-touch, and the like. In many ways we have “played into their [opponents to religion] hands and that is totally unnecessary,” says Guinness.

In thinking about this, check out the recent discussion on Jesus Creed. Note especially the statement by RJS in “Comment #15:”

Coyne sets up a view of Christian faith - knocks it down, and becomes annoyed when the reality of Christian thought is more complex. The data he takes to disprove the faith becomes data that refines our understanding of faith and revelation.

There is nothing the new atheists would like more than for the fundamentalist view of Scripture to predominate in evangelicalism. They can set it up as a straw man and then beat it to death. Tragically, along with that death goes the Christian faith of many young people. It is the only faith they know and, now dead, they have nothing to take its place.

In reality Scripture is much richer than that. It is a living document, which through the ongoing activity of the Spirit of God, transcends culture and time.

In the last installment of our video “Conversations”, Dr. Jeff Schloss of Westmont College discussed two reasons for evangelical opposition to evolution: the theory’s challenges to biblical historicity and to the belief in a creator. In this segment, Schloss addresses what he sees as the third major area of difficulty and that is the question of whether or not human beings are predisposed toward belief in a higher power.

He observes that this has to do with human nature, and not just the origins of human beings, but what it is inside of human beings that people take as tokens of the transcendent—for example, certain moral beliefs, or the human capacity to have religious beliefs. He notes that these are areas of inquiry that evolutionary theory didn’t touch for the first 150 years or so, but in the last few decades its discourse has considered the possibility.

Schloss points out that while this question of evolutionary predisposition toward religious belief may be challenging, Christians need not see it as threatening. In fact, this is actually a Pauline notion that is explored in Romans 1, where Paul claims that it is in mankind’s nature to “know God”: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (ESV, Romans 1:20-21).