As I’m sure you figured out if you
checked this site last week, I took last week off from posting. With the Thanksgiving holiday, the whole
church staff had just two days to get done what usually takes us four days to
accomplish. That did not leave me any
time to write a post and I figured that most folks wouldn’t be interested in
reading that post on the day before Thanksgiving. But I’m back now, and this week I’m going to
pick up where I left off in my blog series on why I disagree with those within
the Church who are calling for a return to the ways of the Reformers. The reasons I’ve given so far for my
disagreement are (1) not enough people are being invited to the table and (2)
both the reformers and their modern devotees emphasize the doctrine of
predestination. This series could go on
a great deal longer but I think I’ll conclude it this week to move on to
subjects that might be of more interest to the general readership. But before we move on, here is the last
reason I will discuss for why I do not agree that we should return to the ways
of the Reformers:
The
Reformers lived before modern science and the Neo-Reformed crowd is often
dismissive of contemporary science:
First of all, let me offer a little
Alka-Seltzer to those of you who just got a terrible case of theological
heartburn from reading the bold words above.
Please know that I do not dismiss all thoughts and beliefs from everyone
who lived before the advent of modern science.
If I did that I’d have to get rid of a guy named Jesus, along with
followers of his such as Paul, James, Augustine of Hippo, as well as Martin
Luther and John Calvin. In no way do I
dismiss them as being superstitious and ignorant people as many secularists do. Only someone who has no sense of history or culture
would come to that kind of conclusion.
Socrates, Plato, Homer, Rumi, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, and
Shakespeare all lived before the dawn of what we consider modern science. Where would we be without them?
Secondly, I want you to know that I do not
think that science will save us from ourselves.
Like everything connected to humanity, science does great good and great
evil. For instance, science is making it
possible to eradicate many childhood diseases, while at the same time science
is also making it possible for the Syrian government to kill children with
chemical weapons. Science has given us
nuclear weapons, just as science has given us the heart transplant. Science is the answer to some of our
problems, but it is not the answer to all of our problems. Henry David Thoreau asks the same question I
ask, “With all your science can you tell how it is, and whence it is, that
light comes into the soul?” Now that you
know that I do not dismiss pre-scientific minds as second-rate, and that I do
not think that science is the answer to all of our problems, I feel like I can
make my point.
When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses
to the church door in Wittenberg, Copernicus had not yet published his works
that claimed (rightly) that the earth orbits around the sun instead of vice
versa. Later in his life, Luther did
learn of this and in response he said, “There is talk of a new astrologer who wants
to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the
moon… but that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he
must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the
best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However,
as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not
the earth."
Martin Luther, one of
the greatest theological minds ever to grace this earth, was wrong on the
subject of astronomy. I don’t blame
Luther for being wrong on this. He was a
theologian, not a scientist. Also, he
lived in a time when this idea was new and hard to believe (although it was
true). My problem with Luther is that not
only was he wrong, but he also called Copernicus a fool who was just wishing to
be clever. This is not unlike what many
conservative Christians say these days about scientists in the field of
evolutionary biology; they’re just fools trying to be clever, or even worse evil. Because Copernicus’s findings contradicted
what Luther wanted to believe, Copernicus must be a fool. It turns out that on that particular subject,
history has proven Brother Luther to be the fool. I really think that someday people are going
to look back on this time in history the same way we look back on the 16th
Century and say, “How could they have dismissed what is supported by so much
scientific evidence just because it contradicted what they thought the Bible
said on the subject?” The Neo-Reformed
folks (some of which reside in the congregations that are leaving the PC(USA))
want to stick with Luther on this one.
They recognize that Luther was wrong on this, but then they are willing
to invest a great deal of time, energy, and money into doing the same exact thing
he did except this time with common descent of all life and adaptation over
time (Evolutionary Biology).
We don’t know if John Calvin knew much about Copernicus, but we do know
that Calvin held the common view of the day that the earth was in the center
and everything orbited around it. I
don’t blame Luther or Calvin for being men of their own time, but I do think it
is problematic to put as much stock in the biblical-scientific teachings of
these two 16th century geniuses when they knew nothing of modern
scientific knowledge in fields such as astronomy, evolutionary biology,
neuroscience, and geology. Again, by no
means am I saying this makes all pre-scientific viewpoints valueless. What I am saying is that science needs a
chair at the table as well. The
Reformers didn’t know to invite science to the table. However, those who call for a return to the
Reformers refuse to give the invitation, and I believe they should know better.
The Reformers and their modern devotees,
because of their inerrant and literalistic views of the Scriptures, cannot help
but reject scientific knowledge regarding the origins of the Universe, the
origins of human life, human sexuality, and so on and so forth. It causes problems for their rigid
propositional theologies so they deny the validity of certain areas of science
so they do not have to reformulate what they currently believe based upon 16th
Century interpretations of 2,000-4,000 year old texts. Many of these folks, along with other
conservative Christians, believe that the world was created between
6,000-10,000 years ago, that either dinosaurs didn’t exist (I heard one pastor
tell me once that the bones were planted by Satan) or they fit into that
timeline and lived alongside human beings although all scientific evidence is
to the contrary. They believe that God created two people from scratch (which God most certainly can do, but it doesn't seem to have been done that way), that God scattered humanity and gave them individual languages,
that two of every animal fit on one boat although the lowest estimate of the
number of animal species is around 3,000,000 (even if you subtract the water and air animals, this still makes for a number in the millions), that the animals all then spread
out from Mount Ararat in modern day Turkey (that’s a long walk/swim for a
duck-billed platypus), that God made the sun stand still just so Joshua could
kill more people (although the sun doesn’t move anyway), and I could go on and
on. It is difficult for me to understand
how and why folks choose to believe this way, but as an American I completely feel
they have the freedom to do so. However,
folks who believe this way often want to make the rest of us believe it as
well through manipulating public school curriculum. I think a lot of the Neo-Reformed folks fall
into this category.
Personally, I concur with the stance of
the Presbyterian Church (USA) on this topic, which states, “In 1969, the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States issued the
following statement: ‘Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith (Westminster),
nor our Catechisms (Westminster), teach the Creation of man by the direct and
immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a
scientific theory… Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with
the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and
to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific
tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of
ours… We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the
Bible is that of non-contradiction.’”
If you are interested in reading more
about this, I have discussed the topic of science and the Christian faith in
greater detail in my post from March 5, 2013 entitled “One of My Personal Heroes: Dr. Francis Collins, Md., Phd.”
Also, you should pick up the November 2013 issue of Presbyterians Today,
which is entitled “Religion and Science—Can We Talk?” and is available on the
small table outside the church office (and each session member has a copy as
well). In addition, I have a book
called The Language of Science and Faith:
Straight Answers to Genuine Questions by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S.
Collins. I’d love to lend it to you.
In conclusion I just want to say
something about the Presbyterian Church (USA).
My denomination, the PC(USA), along with the United Church of Christ,
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Episcopal Church (USA), and the
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), is one of the most progressive
Christian bodies in regard to being a people of strong Christian faith while at
the same time accepting, respecting, and often celebrating the findings of
modern science including (but not limited to) evolutionary biology. Some in our denomination are bothered or
ashamed of this. I, however, am filled
with joy and a healthy pride because of this.
It is because of, not in spite of, our denomination’s open and
progressive stance on this and other issues (in addition to the amazing peace,
justice, and reconciliation work that we are doing around the world) that I am
proud to be a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and to serve a
Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation. Although
I don’t love it as much as I love Jesus Christ, I love this denomination very deeply, and I
hope you do too.
Grace and Peace,
Everett
