I think the most important thing to remember about Evolution scientifically is that it is a theory. It certainly has very good scientific evidence to back the theory up. The Church doesn't need to accept Evolution as the way God created the Earth just yet, but the Church certainly needs to build a relationship with science in general. For the most part I agree with this video clip. The past has seen a very strained relationship between science and the church and this doesn't have to be anymore. We were created by God, I 100% believe that, but we are self aware and have a desire to find out the mechanism of that creation, that's were science comes in. That mechanism could very likely be evolution.
In which case it's a good thing that God is "rich in grace" Eph 2:4.
It's clear that you strongly disagree with Mr. Waltke and that's fine. I don't agree with everything he said either.
But the purpose of this blog is to have a safe arena to engage and wrestle with these sorts of topics. I think it's important that we as Christians think critically. So please provide some clarification: what is it you disagree with, and why?
Please don't take my comment personally Tim...I was and am responding to the spirit at work in this idea...and in the idea of "unity". Because we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the rulers of this world, of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual powers of evil in the heavenlies (Eph 6:12) There is another camp whose main goal is unity, and it is the "new age" movement, those waiting for "the Christ", or "Matraeiya"......the satanic. Their goal is, of course, unity of the faiths........which is what this guy's main point ultimately was. That is what is sickenning...
Thanks, I just wanted to know where you were coming from and what aspect of this you disagreed with.
In all fairness to him, I don't think in 3 minutes anyone can really flesh out an idea in a strong way.
But what surprises me about what he has to say is the whole "sect" thing. In all sorts of different times and places (including today in places like China and even certain places in Europe) Christianity has been perceived as a "sect" by others. But I don't think that perception should have any influence on shaping doctrine.
So from my angle, his conclusions aside, I think that argument is just down-right silly.
I would expect better from an intelligent, well respected OT scholar...
I should clarify too, that I don't agree with the point on the marginalization of sects as his talk digresses. Nor do I agree with accepting Evolution if only to improve unity. I do, however, agree that an open dialogue with science is hundreds of years overdue.
This talk, while painfully hard to watch, is good at what Tim was intending to open dialog about. It's not hard to see where I stand on the issue of science and the church. I hope to continue the dialog. The clips ends unfortunately as there are some good points raised, but then another adgenda comes shining through at the end.
First let me qualify this by saying I was doing three other things while I watched the video. BUT, I am not sure that the idea of being marginalized is quite as crazy as it might first sound. Just think a few hundred years ago to when people thought the world was flat. Anyone who held to that previous scientific "fact" would be very marginalized today. I think that Waltke is quite right that those who continue to hold to a literal reading about women and head coverings are also generally the marginalized in society (as a person who lived in Southern Manitoba I think I speak with some authority on the matter :D )
The way I understood Waltke was that IF all the evidence points towards something we only push ourselves out, in the same way that holding to a flat earth theory was eventually proved wrong. The idea of a flat earth was no less challenging to Biblical interpretation than evolution is today.
All of this to say that the conversation needs to happen in the church. AND simply saying the Bible says so, is simply unhelpful to this debate.
I really appreciate those who are seriously wrestling with both science and Bible, and are not willing to accept any simple answers.
I agree 100% that science and faith need to have more dialog. I think the better we understand both the more we'll realize that there isn't really much of a chasm between the two at all. Maybe this is overly simplistic (and you science types can correct me of you want) but in my mind science is really just the stydy and utilization of God's creation. When seen as such science isn't a "threat" to faith.
And I do understand what you're saying Nathan. And it is true that the Apostle Paul was quite concerned about how the church was viewed by those outside the church (Col. 4:5; 1Tim 3:7). However, building a positive reputation for God's people isn't the same as compromising our beliefs in order to keep that reputation. That being said, I don't think that is what Waltke was actually saying. 3 minutes isn't enough time to articulate this sort of thought process.
And you're absolutely right. In the past the church has really messed things up with science. The whole flat-earth thing; the whole earth-is-the-centre-of-the-solar-system thing. In that sense I think what Watke is getting at is that we need to deal with evolution differently than we did with those. The church took a hard-line "literalist" approach and got burnt. Getting burnt again here wouldn't do the church any favours.
So here's a question: how should we approach this topic? I'm pretty sure 90% of the people who read this blog believe that God created everything. So, regardless of what you believe God's method of creation was, how should we approach the topic of evolution?
Oh, and I'd be interested to get everyone's take on the events in Switzerland with the Large Hadron Collider. Since they think this might give them insights into the "Big Bang" it sort of ties in to what we're talking about.
If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/31collider.html
We have a few of you regular readers whose science background might actually mean you are something close to being qualified to have a real opinion on this one :) So what do you think?
I should say that I am not worried about the church being marginalized. I am more concerned about what we are marginalized over. For example, I believe that life is more than just being a consumer. I also believe that Christians are called to be peacemakers, and that going to war for any reason contradicts that calling. These convictions when lived out will put me and other Christians on the outside of culture. Which is fine, I do believe that the church is supposed to be a counter-cultural community (read Snyder Models of the Kingdom). What I struggle with on the topic of evolution is that there is evidence that suggests that it is at the very least possible. Now I fully believe that God created the world, I also believe that God creating and evolution are not necessarily a contradiction.
There has been much written about the evolution and Christianity, and I think that we need to start reading more, and being open to the fact that maybe our beliefs need to change. We don't change our beliefs just so we look good, or are not marginalized, but because it may genuinely be where the evidence lies. That said I don't want to be part of a sect that is hanging on to a belief that has all of the evidence stacked against it. Even as I write that I realize that there might be other issues that I would take that statement back...
Ok, probably enough rambling here and I apologize. I was just reading the book called Different Eyes and in it there was a comment that today's heretics are often the next generations saints. There was a time in South Africa when the Dutch Reformed church preached that the black people there had the curse of Ham and that is why apartheid was acceptable. Today we condemn that sort of thinking... all of which is to say, is it possible that those who believe in Theistic Evolution will be heroes of the Christian faith?
The Large Hadron Collider is a pretty immense and sweet experiment. I'm all for watching what the physicist's find as a result. I think the physicist's have been quite tongue and cheek in naming the unfound subatomic particle as the "God Particle". They obviosly have done that, in part, to get a rise from the church, and the traditional church is usually more than happy to obligue such requests. Will finding a new subatomic particle solve the mystery of the creation of the universe? I doubt it. New discoveries like this usually just lead to a slighty greater understanding and then a whole lot more questions. The thing about science I find so sweet is you get to really see how intricately balanced and really well designed creation, or our universe, is. Is it any coincidence that water doesn't behave like any other liquid? How can it be most dense at 4 degrees celsius? Yet because it is, the water at the bottom of a lake doesn't freeze if it's deep enough and the fish live through the winter. Science doesn't answer enough questions, or ever will (in my opinion), to put our faith in creation at risk. For me it only serves to prove that God's plan was completely unreal!
I feel led to leave this post here because I am reading a lot of statements regarding what "needs" to happen. I warn you to be careful about making statements about what the church "needs to do" because the church, as in the body of believers, belongs to God (Yahweh) and not us. Under what authority does this question "need" to be addressed? And what "church" are we speaking of? If you mean the church as in the staff and congregation, that's one thing....the church there is made up of members...some of which may not agree that this topic "needs" to be addressed. If by church you refer to the body of believers as a whole (world-wide)...well, that's God's territory and I would say that He alone has authority to decide what "needs" to be done. If we are in constant prayer on the matter and that is where He is leading, then that's great...but if our Big Fat Greek Mindset is simply eager to reason it out, then I suggest we tread carefully about using strong language like "the church needs". And as for head coverings, I have my head covered while making this statement in accordance with 1Cor 11:5 and I feel no oppression at following it.
14 comments:
Should the Church accept Evolution?
I think the most important thing to remember about Evolution scientifically is that it is a theory. It certainly has very good scientific evidence to back the theory up. The Church doesn't need to accept Evolution as the way God created the Earth just yet, but the Church certainly needs to build a relationship with science in general. For the most part I agree with this video clip. The past has seen a very strained relationship between science and the church and this doesn't have to be anymore. We were created by God, I 100% believe that, but we are self aware and have a desire to find out the mechanism of that creation, that's were science comes in. That mechanism could very likely be evolution.
...the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience..Eph 2:2
Sickenning
In which case it's a good thing that God is "rich in grace" Eph 2:4.
It's clear that you strongly disagree with Mr. Waltke and that's fine. I don't agree with everything he said either.
But the purpose of this blog is to have a safe arena to engage and wrestle with these sorts of topics. I think it's important that we as Christians think critically. So please provide some clarification: what is it you disagree with, and why?
Please don't take my comment personally Tim...I was and am responding to the spirit at work in this idea...and in the idea of "unity".
Because we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the rulers of this world, of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual powers of evil in the heavenlies (Eph 6:12)
There is another camp whose main goal is unity, and it is the "new age" movement, those waiting for "the Christ", or "Matraeiya"......the satanic. Their goal is, of course, unity of the faiths........which is what this guy's main point ultimately was. That is what is sickenning...
Thanks, I just wanted to know where you were coming from and what aspect of this you disagreed with.
In all fairness to him, I don't think in 3 minutes anyone can really flesh out an idea in a strong way.
But what surprises me about what he has to say is the whole "sect" thing. In all sorts of different times and places (including today in places like China and even certain places in Europe) Christianity has been perceived as a "sect" by others. But I don't think that perception should have any influence on shaping doctrine.
So from my angle, his conclusions aside, I think that argument is just down-right silly.
I would expect better from an intelligent, well respected OT scholar...
I think I just became an ardent ESV reader....
I should clarify too, that I don't agree with the point on the marginalization of sects as his talk digresses. Nor do I agree with accepting Evolution if only to improve unity. I do, however, agree that an open dialogue with science is hundreds of years overdue.
This talk, while painfully hard to watch, is good at what Tim was intending to open dialog about. It's not hard to see where I stand on the issue of science and the church. I hope to continue the dialog. The clips ends unfortunately as there are some good points raised, but then another adgenda comes shining through at the end.
First let me qualify this by saying I was doing three other things while I watched the video. BUT, I am not sure that the idea of being marginalized is quite as crazy as it might first sound. Just think a few hundred years ago to when people thought the world was flat. Anyone who held to that previous scientific "fact" would be very marginalized today. I think that Waltke is quite right that those who continue to hold to a literal reading about women and head coverings are also generally the marginalized in society (as a person who lived in Southern Manitoba I think I speak with some authority on the matter :D )
The way I understood Waltke was that IF all the evidence points towards something we only push ourselves out, in the same way that holding to a flat earth theory was eventually proved wrong. The idea of a flat earth was no less challenging to Biblical interpretation than evolution is today.
All of this to say that the conversation needs to happen in the church. AND simply saying the Bible says so, is simply unhelpful to this debate.
I really appreciate those who are seriously wrestling with both science and Bible, and are not willing to accept any simple answers.
I agree 100% that science and faith need to have more dialog. I think the better we understand both the more we'll realize that there isn't really much of a chasm between the two at all. Maybe this is overly simplistic (and you science types can correct me of you want) but in my mind science is really just the stydy and utilization of God's creation. When seen as such science isn't a "threat" to faith.
And I do understand what you're saying Nathan. And it is true that the Apostle Paul was quite concerned about how the church was viewed by those outside the church (Col. 4:5; 1Tim 3:7). However, building a positive reputation for God's people isn't the same as compromising our beliefs in order to keep that reputation. That being said, I don't think that is what Waltke was actually saying. 3 minutes isn't enough time to articulate this sort of thought process.
And you're absolutely right. In the past the church has really messed things up with science. The whole flat-earth thing; the whole earth-is-the-centre-of-the-solar-system thing. In that sense I think what Watke is getting at is that we need to deal with evolution differently than we did with those. The church took a hard-line "literalist" approach and got burnt. Getting burnt again here wouldn't do the church any favours.
So here's a question: how should we approach this topic? I'm pretty sure 90% of the people who read this blog believe that God created everything. So, regardless of what you believe God's method of creation was, how should we approach the topic of evolution?
Oh, and I'd be interested to get everyone's take on the events in Switzerland with the Large Hadron Collider. Since they think this might give them insights into the "Big Bang" it sort of ties in to what we're talking about.
If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/31collider.html
We have a few of you regular readers whose science background might actually mean you are something close to being qualified to have a real opinion on this one :) So what do you think?
I should say that I am not worried about the church being marginalized. I am more concerned about what we are marginalized over. For example, I believe that life is more than just being a consumer. I also believe that Christians are called to be peacemakers, and that going to war for any reason contradicts that calling. These convictions when lived out will put me and other Christians on the outside of culture. Which is fine, I do believe that the church is supposed to be a counter-cultural community (read Snyder Models of the Kingdom). What I struggle with on the topic of evolution is that there is evidence that suggests that it is at the very least possible. Now I fully believe that God created the world, I also believe that God creating and evolution are not necessarily a contradiction.
There has been much written about the evolution and Christianity, and I think that we need to start reading more, and being open to the fact that maybe our beliefs need to change. We don't change our beliefs just so we look good, or are not marginalized, but because it may genuinely be where the evidence lies. That said I don't want to be part of a sect that is hanging on to a belief that has all of the evidence stacked against it. Even as I write that I realize that there might be other issues that I would take that statement back...
Ok, probably enough rambling here and I apologize. I was just reading the book called Different Eyes and in it there was a comment that today's heretics are often the next generations saints. There was a time in South Africa when the Dutch Reformed church preached that the black people there had the curse of Ham and that is why apartheid was acceptable. Today we condemn that sort of thinking... all of which is to say, is it possible that those who believe in Theistic Evolution will be heroes of the Christian faith?
The Large Hadron Collider is a pretty immense and sweet experiment. I'm all for watching what the physicist's find as a result. I think the physicist's have been quite tongue and cheek in naming the unfound subatomic particle as the "God Particle". They obviosly have done that, in part, to get a rise from the church, and the traditional church is usually more than happy to obligue such requests. Will finding a new subatomic particle solve the mystery of the creation of the universe? I doubt it. New discoveries like this usually just lead to a slighty greater understanding and then a whole lot more questions. The thing about science I find so sweet is you get to really see how intricately balanced and really well designed creation, or our universe, is. Is it any coincidence that water doesn't behave like any other liquid? How can it be most dense at 4 degrees celsius? Yet because it is, the water at the bottom of a lake doesn't freeze if it's deep enough and the fish live through the winter. Science doesn't answer enough questions, or ever will (in my opinion), to put our faith in creation at risk. For me it only serves to prove that God's plan was completely unreal!
I feel led to leave this post here because I am reading a lot of statements regarding what "needs" to happen. I warn you to be careful about making statements about what the church "needs to do" because the church, as in the body of believers, belongs to God (Yahweh) and not us. Under what authority does this question "need" to be addressed? And what "church" are we speaking of? If you mean the church as in the staff and congregation, that's one thing....the church there is made up of members...some of which may not agree that this topic "needs" to be addressed. If by church you refer to the body of believers as a whole (world-wide)...well, that's God's territory and I would say that He alone has authority to decide what "needs" to be done. If we are in constant prayer on the matter and that is where He is leading, then that's great...but if our Big Fat Greek Mindset is simply eager to reason it out, then I suggest we tread carefully about using strong language like "the church needs".
And as for head coverings, I have my head covered while making this statement in accordance with 1Cor 11:5 and I feel no oppression at following it.
My two cents: the video won't play for me. Yeah, that's all I have to say. I was late responding and that's what I get... sigh.
Post a Comment