Interrogating the Church, 02 – Faith and Science

I grew up hearing many people disparaging science, especially evolution, as contrary to God, the Bible, faith, and religion in general. I’m pretty sure you have heard and seen the same. It is not simply a position we have inherited extending back to the Scopes Monkey Trial. It goes back to the days of Galileo, Copernicus, and before. Most every momentous new discovery has been attacked as a threat to society, to faith, to our understanding of the world. This is not really about faith in God. It is rather about clinging to a belief system.

Most anyone will readily accept that they have limitations. There is only so much that we know, only so much that we can know, only so much we can understand. Accepting and stating that is simple. It is a bit harder, however, to recognize where those limitations lie. It matters little if we are talking about our understanding of the world around us or our understanding of God, the Bible, and other matters of theology.

I recall being taught about the scientific method in my evangelical school. At the same time that we talked about the process from a hypothesis to testing to theory, the very same teachers talked about how the theory of evolution could not be correct. As far as they were concerned, it was incorrect due to the manner in which they interpreted the Bible. Their arguments were not scientific inquiries. They were religious dogma. Meanwhile, some of us disagreed with their manner of Biblical interpretation and saw no conflict with listening to what the current state of the science had to say.

My perception was that if God indeed created the world, then it was within the bounds of science to study that world and learn about its makeup, processes, governing rules, and answer the questions of how, when, and where. On the other hand, the Bible was a different category of inquiry based not on the processes of science, but of revelation. It was written by pre-scientific people from very different perspectives than what science brings to the world.

If we look to the Bible to speak to all questions of truth, including those which are the domain of scientific inquiry, then we will have consistent conflict. Science continually shifts its perspectives, builds on previous understandings, and moves on in developing better understandings of the world and its workings. The Bible, as dynamic as it may be, remains a static text. Our understanding of it may also grow, but it will be limited to what the text already says. If our understanding of the Bible requires it to consistently tell the truth in every word and every context, it cannot address the ever-changing nature of scientific discovery.

When we do not have a need to protect the Bible and our theology from science, however, all of that conflict disappears. For this, we must look at the Bible differently from so many common perceptions in the evangelical world. The Bible does not tell us how God created the world. If we try to press it for a process, we find a conflict between the accounts of creation in Genesis chapters one and two. If we accept what the Bible attempts to teach us in those same chapters, however, the conflict disappears both between the two accounts and with scientific discovery itself.

There is no need to throw out the Bible in light of scientific inquiry around evolution, the earth revolving around the sun, and our place within a galaxy cluster. We need not ignore what science can teach us about disease, medicine, and mental health. Those are simply the result of discovering how the world of God’s creation works. The purpose of faith and the Bible have a very different focus. That focus is on learning to love one another, better understanding what God has revealed to us, and becoming what God intended for us to become. There is more than enough there to keep us too busy to worry about challenging science or protecting God from scrutiny. After all, if God is indeed creator, God can stand up to whatever scrutiny science can deliver.



— ©Copyright 2023, Christopher B. Harbin 



http://www.sermonsearch.com/contributors/104427/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel Is Not Conservative

Image
Fundamentalism and conservativism are intrinsically averse to change. They are tied with conserving a status quo or moving back to a former era. They seek a safe place, a respite from change and transformation in the world around them. They are threatened by new ideas. They fear that the foundations on which they base their lives will be uprooted, causing their view of reality to fall apart. Growth depends on change. Life requires change. Survival depends on responding to changes in our environment. It requires new ideas. It requires new answers to old questions, as well as new questions with even newer answers. Jesus was by no means conservative. Jesus challenged the status quo. He fought against the groundwork of much of the religious thought around him, as well as the structures erected to empower its values. He called out those who benefited from social, religious, and political power. He demonstrated God's love, forgiveness and grace to those deemed una...
Read more

God in the Hands of Angry Sinners

Image
Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” set a very poor direction for much of Christianity in the Colonies. His Puritan tradition presented God as an essentially angry deity whose desire was to condemn and torture. Grace or mercy existed simply in regard to how long God waited until calling down judgment upon sinners. That is not good news. It never was. Such is not the message of Jesus whom the gospel writers claim as good news. They echo the words of the celestial messengers declaring Jesus’ birth as good news of great joy to all peoples. Rather than look to Jesus as the clearest example of God’s identity, character, and will, that tradition surrounding Edwards began with an altogether different understanding that could not account for what Jesus actually taught. The Puritan perspective began with angry sinners and projected that upon God. Anger begins with fear, uncertainty, discomfort, and the inability to control one’s environment, ot...
Read more

Our Language of Choice

Image
I woke up this morning and decided to be a woman. I really like the idea of earning less money on the job. I like the idea of being passed over for promotions. I like that I will be held more accountable for the care of my home and familial responsibilities than any of the men around me. I’m looking forward to having my expertise ignored. I like that I’ll more likely be treated as a lower-level assistant to male colleagues than an actual colleague. It should be a good experience to live as more of a target for domestic violence and abuse. It will be so freeing to let go of my bodily autonomy and place it in the hands of men who will not understand me. With so many voices in our society shifting back toward the attitudes of 70 years ago, I am really looking forward to setting aside all trappings of male privilege and power to live as a second class citizen whose voice and opinions are essentially irrelevant. Just look at all the advantages women have! They get t...
Read more