Discussion of Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam

I read Peter Enns' interesting and provocative The Evolution of Adam a couple months ago. It has a lot of interesting things to say about the important issue of how the science-and-religion dialogues (and the related issue of the rise of critical biblical scholarship) of the past century and a half (and beyond) come to an interesting head in the discussion of the historicity of Adam and Eve. Really, in my opinion, this is one of the key points at which, with regard to the larger science-and-theology dialogue, the rubber meets the road, so to speak. I found his book interesting, though not all-together satisfying. But others are engaging Enns as well.

Jamie K. A. Smith has recently published a review of Enns focused largely on methodology, specifically pressing him on what he sees as a "flattening" of Scripture by functionally excluding divine authorship. J. R. Daniel Kirk responds to Smith's review, and in the comments of his critique, Jamie Smith and also Alan Jacobs enter with some push-back. It makes for an informative conversation about the role divine authorship plays as we look at difficult interpretive issues in Scripture. Do read, and do read Enns's book, critically.

Alister McGrath, The Passionate Intellect

I loved this book. Alister McGrath is one of the most distinguished scholars in the evangelical world. He spent 25 years teaching historical and systematic theology at Oxford University and is now head of the Centre for Theology, Religion & Culture at King's College, London. He also holds Doctorates from Oxford in both historical theology and molecular biophysics. And he has also written broadly at both an academic and more popular level, focusing especially on historical theology, the interplay of science and theology, and most recently of a Christian response to the New Atheism of Richard Dawkins and others. This all means he is ideally placed to comment in this present book on the importance of theological thinking and the importance of careful consciousness of the traditions of the past as living voices for the church today. The first half of the book is a series of investigations into the sources and methods of theology and an application of these methods to a couple of important theological questions--the role of ambiguity in faith, a Christian understanding of nature, and the role of apologetics and its relation to theology. The second half of the book is a series of essays engaging with important issues in our current culture from a historically oriented theological perspective. These essays focus on two main issues, the proper relation between science and theology and the (closely related) possibility of a robust Christian response to the new athiesm of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. And it is here that this book especially shines. McGrath's readable and lucid descriptions of how science and theology may be fruitfully related are outstanding and point in far more fruitful directions than are often assumed to be possible when the relationship is thought to be one of conflict instead of "reasonance" as McGrath describes it.

This book is a series of lectures given in 2008-9. This gives them a timely feel, as he addresses contemporary issues, and it also give the book a nice conversational and approachable tone. But, unlike many volumes of lectures, these have been been carefully reworked so they cohere nicely and smoothly and are well-annotated with relevant citations. This book demonstrates again McGrath's amazingly wide reading across historical and contemporary theology, philosophy, the natural sciences, sociology and literature, though he wears this learning lightly. His prose is always clear, and he makes his points efficiently. In all, I really loved this book. It was enjoyable to read and reinvigorated my passion for theology, even as it presented helpful directions for cultural engagement in our postmodern and post-Christian world.

Carlson and Longman, Science, Creation and the Bible

In this brief and general-reader-friendly book, physicist Richard Carlson and Biblical Studies professor Tremper Longman III undertake an attempt at a solution to the perceived conflict between the Genesis creation accounts and modern science. They advocate a reconciliation between the two disciplines, and they do this by making the following argument (their thesis statement, which appears on page 14):

The first two chapters of Genesis, which accurately present two accounts of creation in terms of ancient Hebrew scientific observations and heir historical understanding, are neither historical nor literal in the twenty-first-century literal sense. Instead, the underlying message of these chapters applies for all time and constitutes a complete statement of the worldview of the Hebrew people in the ancient Near East. They accurately understood the universe in terms of why God created it but not how in the modern scientific and historical sense. This worldview, markedly different from those of their pagan neighbors articulates the principles underlying their understanding of the relation of God to the universe, their relation to the true God, and their relation to each other and to the created order.

This book has a number of strengths, as the authors seek to make their case for this thesis. The principle strength is that it distills a lot of technical and academic thinking and writing into a very readable presentation that introduces some of these concepts and arguments to people who aren't otherwise familiar with them. For instance, the writers use some of John Polkinghorne's work to present a vision of the relationship between science and theology that goes beyond the popular conflict motif to a much more nuanced understanding of two disciplines with different spheres of study and different aims. The second major discussion that lays the groundwork for their thesis surrounds biblical hermeneutics, that is, how we read the Bible. Here again the authors present in simple terms an approach to reading the Bible that pushes people to be self-conscious in how they are interpreting the Bible and opens up the question of genre, the more of less formal conventions that guided both author and audience in understanding the type of text being presented. They discuss at length an incarnational model for understanding the Bible as both a divine and a human book. They also push for the category of myth as being helpful when looking to Genesis 1 and 2 and make a case from some contemporary authors such as C. S. Lewis for the usefulness and legitimacy of Christian myth.

The authors then move on to a reading of the major creation texts in the Old and New Testaments, preparing the way for a careful reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to investigate its place in the canon, its teaching, and its context in the ancient Near East. They assert that Genesis 1 and 2 should be read as a worldview statement for the ancient Hebrews, a statement that is made in a two-layered story, one layer being that of a story of the experiences and understandings of the ancient Hebrews, and a second layer consisting of the theological story they wanted to convey. It is the second, theological layer that is important for us today. They also point out both the similarities and the difference between the two Genesis accounts, concluding that the differences cue us in that these stories aren't meant to be read literally, since the author left in what would otherwise be viewed as conflicting details.

I have many reasons to commend this book. It is readable, and it helps to get people thinking in a critical way about what is perceived as a major conflict for Christians today between science and the Bible. I think many of their ideas are very helpful, and I do think that reading Genesis 1 and 2 against the back drop of the ancient Near East gives much greater understanding of these passages than a surface reading by someone in the twenty-first century alone could. I am also in agreement with the basic outline of the relationship they sketch between science and theology and hope this popular-level treatment brings that understanding to a wider audience. There were, I thought, a few weaknesses in the book. For me the largest one was the lack of useful summaries at the end of the two chapters investigating the creation texts in the NT and OT outside of Genesis 1 and 2. I thought these were interesting chapters, but they didn't seem to add much to the argument. Or, at least, their place went largely unstated beyond a few allusions. I also thought they ignored one of the most important "losses" as they term it, if their non-literal approach to Genesis 1 and 2 is adopted, namely the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve and the implications of that discussion for our understanding of humanity, the image of God, and the origin and character of sin. Although it is a complicated question, its exclusion seems a glaring omission (though it could be argued that it is technically outside their scope in focusing on Genesis 1 and 2, but Genesis 2 and 3 clearly for a unit of story, so decisions about one would likely have implications for understanding the other).

In conclusion, I hope many people read this book, and I do happily recommend it. There are pieces that could have been stronger, but it is overall a very clear statement of a better way of thinking about science and the Bible than the conflict model, and it helpful points Christians in a better direction.

Lectures on Science and Theology

I'm always on the search for great lectures available on MP3 (and the availability of quality material seems to be endless). Today I have come across a trove of lectures made available by the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. I navigated through Alister McGrath's homepage, which is itself becoming a great Web resource. Beyond McGrath's lecture on the anthropic principle and natural theology (I haven't listened to it yet, so no opinion yet, though I'm sure it will be exemplary), there are lectures by the likes of John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker on quite an array of topics relating to the relationship of science and religion/theology. I think this is such an important avenue of theological endeavor and appreciate much of the fruitful dialogue that has been developing over the last decades between these disciplines. Enjoy!

Homosexuality, science, and theology

I listened to a really informative lecture last night by Stanton Jones, Provost and Professor of Psychology at Wheaton College and Graduate School. In it, he looks briefly at the theological issues involved in the modern discussions surrounding homosexuality and homosexual practice, and then delves much more deeply in to what modern psychology has to say. He looks at a number of scientific studies, plumbing the depths of what they say and don't say, and exploding a number of myths about what "science says." This informative lecture is well done, and is by an expert in the field of psychology, who is a member of the American Psychological Association and was a member of its Council of Representatives. Thus, he speaks as someone with very good credentials in psychology.

Atheism and evolution

It seems that few debates capture the imagination and ire of religious and non-religious people alike as completely as the debate surrounding evolution. In the US, it has a long history of court decisions, public arguments, and certainly no shortage of book publishing. It seems that at the heart of the debate stands the relation between science and religion. And maybe one of the things that most people can agree upon in the debate, regardless of side, is that the government should not advocate a specific position on the question of religion and faith. Teach credible science, yes, theology, no. What this basic principle means in practice has quite a variety of proponents, but the basic principle seems to stand. That makes the following quote especially interesting, and certainly food for thought. The quote comes from an article from the First Things blog about the recent surge in publishing about atheism. Enjoy.

"The physicist Steve Barr tells the story of a lecture Daniel Dennett gave last year at the University of Delaware, in which he claimed that Darwin had shredded the credibility of religion and was, indeed, the very “destroyer” of God.

"In the question session, a philosophy professor named Jeff Jordan suggested to Dennett: “If Darwinism is inherently atheistic, as you say, then obviously it can’t be taught in public schools.” “And why is that?” inquired Dennett, incredulous. “Because,” said Jordan, “the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution guarantees government neutrality between religion and irreligion.”

"Dennett, looking as if he’d been sucker-punched, leaned back against the wall and said, after a few moments of silence, “clever.” After another silence, he came up with a reply: He had not meant to say that evolution logically entails atheism, merely that it undercuts religion."

Hmm.

Some notes on the news

I read this morning that Tom Hanks and Ron Howard are in final negotiations for a film version of Dan Brown's earlier novel, Angels and Demons. And even though I found their earlier attempt at a Dan Brown movie a rather sad and boring one, I'm looking forward to Angels and Demons. It, like Da Vinci Code, is kind of a fun read, and could make a fun ride for a movie. But even better, I think it raises some great questions about theology and provides a great opportunity to learn and educate others about some of the great themes of Christianity. I can't remember another time in recent history when the status of the books in the Christian canon or the origin of the belief in Christ's divinity have been main-stream questions in the public sphere, but Code did this. And I loved it. I got to learn a whole bunch, and got to teach a bit to others as well. And A&D raises another great set of questions, both about histoical elements of Christianity, but also about the nature of reality and about the relation of science to theology and to belief. I look forward to the conversations.

In another note, the Baptist Press has an article about a survey of college professors that shows very unfavorable feelings toward Evangelical Christians: they received the largest unfavorable rating among religious groups that were part of the survey. I think this shows two things. First, it shows that it is an okay thing in today's culture to be anti-evangelical, and second, I think it shows that there really has been a loss of the Christian mind in evangelicalsm. Though some of these profs probably have unjustified biases against evangelical Christianity, many of them are probably reacting to the quality of the students they see every day. And I think a large part of it has to do with the common evangelical attitude that science as commonly practiced today is antithetical to Christian belief. Yes, there are some scientists who believe that science is antagonistic toward faith, but that is the minority. The two need to have a fruitful interaction.

Science and Faith: Blog review of Vern Polythress

Over the past couple of weeks, Scot McKnight has had a friend, RJS, who is a professor of science at a research institution, review and discuss Vern Polythress's new book, Redeeming Science. This series of three posts, linked to below, has been a great discussion of the relationship between science and faith. I haven't yet read Polythress's book, but have certainly put it on my short list of books I need to buy. (Also, I discovered the entire text of the book online at http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_books.htm, along with other books by Polythress and his colleague John Frame.)

Post #1: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2054

Post #2: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2068

Post #3: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2093
This post goes into an interesting discussion of the beginnings of creation, primary and secondary causation, and Intelligent Design.

Evangelicals and Global Warming. Living out our beliefs?

There has been a lot of attention by evangelicals to the topic of global warming of late. And I think this is a fascinating topic, for a number of reasons. But the thing I most want to reflect on is the connection between beliefs and actions. J. P. Moreland, in Love Your God with All Your Mind, talks about how our beliefs shape our actions, and how our actions are a very good indicator of what we really believe. And I wonder how this relates to the dialogue about global warming. What is it that we actually believe about God's creation and our place and role in it. Do we really believe that the whole universe is God's creation, and do we really believe that we are supposed to be stewards of it? If we do, it would seem like protecting the environment would be a high priority. It would seem like destructive behaviors by human beings would fall under the rubric of sin, because they go against our creational mandate. So if we really believed this, it would seem that we could have our actions fit with our stated beliefs, and work for a sustainable way of life. And conversely, if we don't consider a sustainable lifestyle to be a priority, what does that say about our understanding of salvation and our relation to creation? It would seem to emphasize a "we're out of here" approach to creation that doesn't fully engage with our role as part of God's creation, which yearns toward that day when God will make all things new, including a new heaven and a new earth.

I was troubled to read a release from Focus on the Family and James Dobson yesterday condemning NAE vice president Richard Cizik. According to Dobson, he is too focused on environmental concerns to properly represent the evangelical community. And Dobson is quick to emphasize that not all evangelicals agree with scientists that global warming is an immenent threat to the environment or that it is caused by humans. My first response would be Yes, not all evangelicals agree, but would that exact same logic totally derail Dobson's complaint. Yes, Dr. Dobson, not all evangelicals agree that global warming is a major problem, but at the same time not all evangelicals agree with you that it isn't. Must the NAE agree with you? I would hope evangelicals can move toward the ability to dialogue on issues like this, instead of trying to redraw boundaries to exclude our opponents.

I further think that Dr. Dobson has reverted to some very unfourtunate rhetoric in his attempt to discredit Cizik, when he and other leaders ask, in their letter to the NAE, "how is population control going to be achieved, if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young and even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where Richard Cizik would lead us?" Now, I don't know Cizik personally, nor have I read anything he has written, but I'm sure I'm safe to say he isn't going to come out anytime soon to advocate infanticide! I myself am quite convinced that global warming is a legedimate problem. But I'm not even close to forfeiting all my beliefs about the sanctity of life or sexual ethics. In fact, I would argue that concern for global warming and for global issues like population control is a sanctity-of-life issue. If we really value the lives of all people on earth, we will recognize the threat environmental and population problems may pose to masses of impoverished people over the next decades. How is that not a Christian perspective? I hope my concern for these issues is a genuine living out of my Christian beliefs. And I hope that I can learn more and more and seek God more and more so that my beliefs and my practices are in conformity with God's will.