Archive for April, 2010

Words of Wisdom – Loren Wilkinson

Loren Wilkinson, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Regent College is a man long associated with integrating the realms of scientific and religious understanding. Furthermore, he is a poet farmer, a significant upgrade (in my book) on Plato’s notion of a philosopher king! He has truly influenced many throughout his numerous years as a teacher. If you are at all confused, intrigued, or passionate about the integration of faith and science, you must read these essays/lectures that can be found in the resources section of this site. There are not many who can seamlessly integrate Aristotle, fine ‘religious’ liqueur, scattering x-rays and Savoyard cheeses! Let these titles tickle your fancy…

The Cheeses, the Owls, the Synchrotron and the Chartreuse.

The Singular Universe and the Triune God: Cosmology, Science and Creation.

The Meaning of “Value” in Biodiversity.

Denis Lamoureux – Evolution and Faith

Denis Lamoureux, Associate Professor of Science & Religion at St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta, is a well known contributor to the evolution/creationism conversation. With doctorates in dentistry, theology, and biology, he has been on quite a journey, first seeking and then developing an understanding of the integration of God’s ‘two books’ of revelation – a journey that matches quite well with the purposes of this site! He has written a number of books on this area, with perhaps ‘I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution’ being perhaps the most readable. He has just updated his website, now with web lectures, so if you are interested in further pursuing this area, head on over to Denis Lamoureux’s site.

Resignation of Bruce Waltke over issues of science and faith

It was with astonishment and shared grief that I processed the news of the resignation of our beloved colleague, Professor Bruce Waltke from his post at Reformed Theological Seminary over the issue of his belief in creation by evolution. Astonishment because this is surely not a creedal issue, and such an action violates the preservation of Christian unity and catholicity which is grounded in matters of confessional orthodoxy, and which flounders when matters of a relatively secondary nature are inappropriately elevated. The creedal matter here is that God created the universe and humans, and the secondary matter is how He may have done so. If it may be countered that the inspiration and authority of Scripture is at stake in affirming the evolutionary creation option for the how of creation, surely RTS must have recognized Bruce’s consistently high commitment to this foundational matter (indeed, Bruce even speaks of ‘inerrancy’). And surely we must insist that Scripture is only authoritative as properly interpreted. It is more than ironic that B.B. Warfield, a hero of the Reformed tradition, whose seminal work in the area of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, was, amongst others in this tradition, an evolutionary creationist, and found nothing in Genesis 1 and 2 properly interpreted that contradicted this. Perhaps RTS, to be consistent, should remove readings in Warfield from their courses in bibliology.

Our own majority view on this Cosmos project is that Genesis 1 and 2, as interpreted in light of its literary genre and in light of its ancient near eastern context, is about theology and not chronology. As such it permits a harmonization with the best theory true science can offer for the way in which our cosmos and humans came into being.  Do we insist as a faculty at Regent that all must hold to this to teach here? This would be to exalt a non-confessional issue as a ground for unity in a manner that mitigates against the apostolic appeal for unity which is based on foundational, Trinitarian essentials (Ephesians 4:4-6). Despite the fact that I as a pastor may think evolutionary creation is a better viewpoint than literal 6-day creationism, or Intelligent Design, because it best fits with Scripture and because it best fits with true science, I would not stoop to making this a defining point of fellowship in my church, and I will affirm a doctrine of creation and its pervasive implications for the life and mission of the church, whilst encouraging open and loving dialogue on the matter of origins.

Why does this action by RTS evoke grief? First because it suggests to me that we have not learnt anything from the sad episodes in the history of the church where science was presumed to be in conflict with the Bible (the refusal of the Catholic Church to accept the discovery of Copernicus that the earth was not the centre of the solar system and the excommunication of Galileo for believing this – Bruce is at least in good company!) I am sad secondly because it is yet another example of the penchant for division and fractionation amongst Protestants. It works against the unity over which Jesus agonized in prayer in John 17, not only because the unity of the church was a sacrament of Trinitarian unity, but because He saw this as a vital missional matter. We Evangelicals tend to labour so much over styles of church and techniques for being missional and miss the fact that the most crucial element of the church’s missional power is its unity. I am sad because a seminary which is representative of the Protestant church has once again given it reason to divide over a non-essential. I suspect that the Board at RTS was motivated by pressure of a financial kind related to the popular view of creationism of the conservative Christian populus of the South. What causes me grief about that, in addition to the indignity inflicted on a godly, spiritual scholar to whom I owe a great debt, is that higher matters of the catholicity and mission of the Church at large were neglected. And lastly, at a very missional level, the longer we as the church keep denying science and don’t properly read God’s two books, the longer we will keep stumbling intelligent people from coming into the kingdom by insisting they must adhere to a certain view of the origin of the cosmos.

Ross Hastings