A sermon, a quest, and a book . . .

Last Sunday our pastor preached a good end-of-year/beginning-of-year sermon. He asked us seriously to consider four questions:

• What do [I] need to Celebrate?
   
• What do [I] need to Change?
   
• What do [I] need to Conclude [or End/Terminate]?
   
• What [am I] Contending for?

At each point during the sermon, he paused and gave us time to write down answers to the questions.

What do I need to Celebrate?

I found myself filled with fear when he paused for the first question. It was as if my mind was completely blank. It wasn't that I was thinking there was nothing to celebrate; rather, my memory completely failed me. Last year was a complete blank in my mind. I was afraid he would begin speaking again before I could remember a single thing.

Happily, eventually I remembered a couple of things for which I am grateful:

• My Passport to India. That was a very exciting program!
   
• A general sense that I am gaining new purpose and direction in my life.
   
• Related to the previous item (and very much freeing me to move in new directions!): A greater and greater confidence that staff members at Sonlight/InquisiCorp are fully competent to take on and complete more and more of the tasks that I used to do.

"What do I need to Change?"

Oh boy! Deep in my heart I have been anguishing over a number of intellectual and spiritual issues that I have been unable to put aside . . . for years.

[If you have been following this blog for the last couple of years, you may remember that I promised--back in July of 2009!--to "note some places where I think Lamoureux probably failed, adequately, to do all his homework. Or, if he did his homework, he failed, adequately, to express what I believe he should have." "Let me do that in another post," I said. But I have never returned to the subject. Because I have been afraid to confront the issues. I know a lot of what I need to confront; but it scares me to do so. It scares me even to ask the questions . . . because, I'm afraid, even to ask the questions will, for many people, brand me a heretic. I am afraid that if I ask the questions--or if I admit, even, to reading the books written by certain people--those actions on my part, in themselves, will open me to being branded a heretic. And so I have shied away from raising the issues or asking the questions or--to be most forthright about it--seeking the answers! (I have direct, personal, and very costly experience that has helped create the fear within me. And I have no doubt I will soon tell the story of that experience. But as I write this post, that is for the future.)

The fear of which I speak is not unfounded, I think.

It is as if you were an intellectually open person in the 1950s. Wanting to listen thoughtfully, analytically--maybe even skeptically and disdainfully! (but with care and concern for honesty and justice)--to the heartfelt concerns of leading Socialists and Communists, you purchased or borrowed books written by well spoken advocates for those positions. But, for your troubles, you suddenly find yourself hauled before HUAC--the House Un-American Activities Committee.

In a free society, especially in a self-described Christian society--one in which, I would expect, members are dedicated to honesty, care, love and respect for their fellow human beings! --It seems to me that intellectually rigorous and honest and compassionate concern for the truth and for those who may be of a different opinion or who may be held under sway of a different worldview . . . It seems to me that such behavior should be honored and valued rather than held in disdain or abhorrence.]

. . . Well, I determined on Sunday that I need to put an end to my anguish; I need to stop holding back on confronting the issues; I need to write the book that I've been figuring, for the last several years, at least, that I need to write.

I wrote in my sermon notes: "Write on blog each day?" [I figured that, by writing a blog post each day, I would eventually get my thoughts out of my head and could then, eventually, form them into a unified whole called a book.]

And then Pastor Peter asked his next question:

"What do you need to Conclude?"

Well, I said to myself, I guess I am moving in the right direction!

But I wrote under this item that I need to finish or complete editing on two books written by friends of mine (who often read my blog and so shall go nameless!). I very much want to do those projects for them; I think that they are valuable. But I need to get them out of the way so I can attend more fully to my own project.

And then, finally,

For what are you Contending?

I thought that was an interesting question. Pastor Peter illustrated his meaning by reference to a former assistant pastor in our church who has always had a sensitive spot in his heart for immigrants. "In any room, in any meeting, with any group of people, and he was always on the lookout for the person from another culture," Pastor Peter said.

In essence, he said (at least, this was the meaning that I took away!), "For whose interests are you looking out?"

I found that question rather easy to answer. Especially in the context of what I had written in answer to the previous two questions. I believe I am and always have been most sensitive to and concerned about those who struggle intellectually with issues of faith (or "the" faith). --And, of course (if you know me), that means people who struggle with issues related to Christian faith.

It feels to me as if Christians are "not allowed" to ask the deepest questions. Those who don't struggle find the questions of those of us who do impertinent, bothersome, offensive, demonstrating a fundamental disrespect or disdain for the things of God.

And while I can understand that . . . feeling . . . And while I am sure there are many atheists about whom such comments might be made in truth, I believe that those who assume anyone who asks such questions must be coming from a position of disrespect and disdain are, themselves, demonstrating a fundamental disrespect and disdain for the person who has legitimate and innocent reasons for asking such questions! Indeed, the (non-questioning) people who level such charges are exhibiting an immaturity and fear that ought to have no place in a church or community that claims to be filled with the Spirit, power and wisdom of an almighty and all-knowing God!

But backing off from the sociology or context of question-asking and returning to my conclusions from last Sunday's sermon (!!!), I decided my best course of action at this time is to start a new blog--something separate from John's Corner of the World--to pursue these issues head-on.

If you would like to join me in that particular area of interest, I invite you to visit (the first of) what may become a series of "Forbidden Questions" blogs: Forbidden Questions: Bible & Faith.

[I should probably also note: I am thinking I may create another blog or two--one to deal with health issues and, possibly, a second one to deal with matters related to food. But however much I might enjoy writing those other blogs, creation of the Forbidden Questions blog, I believe, is a responsibility from which I cannot escape. (See my excursus on calling from a few weeks ago.)]

Haarsmas' book--a third look

Before I address the primary issues I wanted to talk about today, I realize I should say something about the subtitle of the Haarsmas' book, Origins. Specifically, as I mentioned a few days ago, it is subtitled "A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution."

Let me suggest why I think it has this subtitle.

The Haarsmas teach at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI, a school sponsored by the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) in North America. Deborah did not grow up in the CRC. It seems clear that Loren did. Being professors at a CRC-sponsored institution, they recognize they have to abide by the doctrinal standards established by that denomination. Beyond that, their book is published by Faith Alive, the denominational publishing house of the CRC.

As a result, the book seeks to make special appeal to that denomination's audience by including the word "Reformed" in its title. It also includes, in Chapter 1 a brief (one and a half paragraph) reference to and quote from an official statement on origins made by the synod (the highest decision-making body) of the Christian Reformed Church in 1991; and it includes 8 pages (Appendices A and C) that quote the full texts of two statements of the CRC synod--from 1972 ("On Biblical Authority"), and 1991 ("On Origins"). Early in Chapter 1 the Haarsmas also include a sidebar in which they explain that they use the word "Reformed" with no intention to divide, but as a kind of "explanation" of the "flavor" of their presentation. Whereas someone else might quote more readily from the Church Fathers or Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther or John Wesley, the Haarsmas tend to quote more often from John Calvin. Their thinking is also flavored a bit more heavily than many with an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God.

I appreciate the Haarsmas' candor. Based on my experience of both the CRC and of the broad evangelical Christian movement, I would like to think that any and every evangelical Christian should find him- or herself quite at home not only with the book's text, but with the manner in which the Haarsmas use Scripture and address their subject.

I thought I should mention these things only because Sarita, who was raised in the CRC, exclaimed over the reference to a denominational statement. She found it troublesome for the Haarsmas to have included such "narrow" references.

Personally, they didn't bother me. And as someone who is used to reading carefully parsed and finely stated theological documents, I actually appreciated being able to consider such statements in the Haarsmas' book.

But Sarita's comments awakened me to my need at least to "forewarn" you. Just in case you, like Sarita, might have some kind of strong (negative) reactions to seeing someone quote their denominational standards.

*******

Okay.

On to the primary subject matter I wanted to address today.

In keeping with their over-all plan of introducing a wide variety of options, the Haarsmas discuss five different uses and/or meanings of the word evolution. Specifically, they define and describe the significance of

• Microevolution.
• Pattern of change over time.
• Common ancestry.
• Theory of evolution.

And,

• Evolutionism.

Having already explained the key differences between science and worldview, the Haarsmas note that evolutionism is in a category by itself compared to the other four because evolutionism "does not refer to science but to a set of worldview beliefs." Specifically, "It refers to the ways in which some people try to use the theory of evolution to support certain atheistic beliefs. . . . When the theory of evolution is used to argue for atheistic beliefs, it is rightly called evolutionism." (p. 153; emphasis added.)

"All Christians are united against evolutionism," write the Haarsmas, "but [they] disagree with each other about the best strategy for combating it."

To illustrate this, let's take a simplified argument for evolutionism. . . .

Premise 1: If the theory of evolution is true, then Christianity is false when it says that God created all the plants and animals.
Premise 2: Science shows that the theory of evolution is true.
Conclusion: Christianity is false.

Young earth creationists [Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis would be a good example] and progressive creationists [Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe would be a good example] combat evolutionism by attacking the second premise. They argue that the scientific evidence does not support the theory of evolution.

Evolutionary creationists combat evolutionism by attacking the first premise. They argue that the Bible does not teach against evolution and that God could work through biological evolution just as he works through other scientifically understandable natural processes.

--p. 156.

A question I had never considered before (though quite similar to the one I have been asking, for years, about the ability of old- and young-earth creationists even to talk with one another): Can Christian young-earth creationists and Christian [old-earth] progressive creationists work together with Christian [old-earth]evolutionists to meet the needs of Christian young people (and older) who really and truly just don't know what to make of all the competing claims?

The Haarsmas suggest we can . . . and should. And in order to do so, they tell the composite story of Jennifer, a young Christian woman, raised in a young-earth creationist home and church, who went off to college in hopes of becoming a medical doctor. Prior to leaving, Jennifer was strongly warned to beware of the wiles of atheist biology professors who would attempt to dissuade her from her faith by means of their teaching about evolution.

As it turned out, her professor for introductory biology, Dr. Bensen, was no atheist. Instead, he was a vibrant leader in the campus Christian ministry Jennifer joined when she went to school. She enjoyed Professor Bensen's class well enough, but at some point realized he was using a textbook that taught evolution as fact . . . and he said nothing in any of his lectures to call the text into question.

Was he compromising his faith?

Jennifer was completely befuddled. What was going on?

She decided to talk with him.

When she asked her questions,

Professor Bensen carefully explained that a great deal of scientific evidence clearly supports evolution. He said that it was right for a Christian to believe that the theory of evolution is correct because scientific evidence supports it and because the Bible doesn't teach against it.

When Jennifer left the professor's office her head was buzzing. She was more confused than when she entered. This was the first time she had heard anything like this.

Jennifer had great respect for Professor Bensen. She had seen the professor's faith in action many times. But if he was right, then her pastor, Sunday school teachers, and parents must be wrong, and she had great respect for them, too. She didn't know whom to believe or where to go for answers.

--pp. 146-147.

So what was going on?

At the conclusion of the chapter in which they discuss the various definitions and uses of evolution, the Haarsmas write:

Jennifer's [parents and the leaders in her church back home] actually have a lot in common with [Professor Bensen]. They agree about who created everything, who redeemed them, and how they should live out the Christian life. They also agree that the atheistic philosophy of evolutionism is wrong. But they disagree about how best to challenge it.

Jennifer's Sunday school teachers believe it's best to confront the theory of evolution. Professor Bensen believes the theory of evolution is a good scientific model and instead confronts the philosophical claims of evolutionism directly. By maintaining a charitable attitude toward each other, Christians who advocate different responses to evolution need not break their unity as believers who work side-by-side to advance God's kingdom.

Imagine what might have happened if Jennifer hadn’t met Professor Bensen. She might have taken a course from a stridently atheistic professor who promoted evolutionism. If so, she might have dropped the course and given up the idea of becoming a doctor. More likely, she might have taken a course from a professor who simply presented the scientific evidence for evolution and never mentioned religion. As the evidence piled up, it could have caused Jennifer to question everything she learned from her church back home.

Neither outcome is desirable.

Jennifer's parents and teachers were rightly concerned about evolutionism, but they put Jennifer in a painful position by giving her only two options: young earth creationism or atheistic evolutionism.

When students are forced to choose between these two, they may either turn away from a career in science or pursue science but turn away from God. A far better approach [we think] is to teach young people about a range of Christian positions on evolution, giving them some options for how to keep their faith when they encounter the theory of evolution.

--pp. 158-159.

And that, of course, is what the Haarsmas do in their wonderful book.

*****************

A couple of more comments and then I'll quit.

First, I want to mention an insight the Haarsmas offer concerning God's providence and the implications of having God create through what we might call "natural" rather than "supernatural" or "miraculous" means.

Chapter 2,dedicated to a discussion of worldviews and science, discusses issues like providence (God's "normal" operation of nature) and miracles. In essence, the Haarsmas ask, what is the distinction between providence and miracle?

Referencing Donald MacKay, a Christian physicist, they offer an analogy for providence that MacKay uses in his book The Open Mind and Other Essays. As I think about the world in light of the analogy, I have to wonder: what is the real difference between [relatively] slow or "normal/natural" processes and the things we tend normally to think of as "miraculous"?

In summary, they say, "[A] god who becomes unnecessary as soon as humans find a scientific explanation for how the world works is not the God of the Bible! The Bible clearly teaches that natural, ordinary events are governed by God. God is active not only in dramatic supernatural events, but also in the ordinary change of the seasons. This view of God is displayed in Psalm 104:19-24."

In an allusion to Colossians 1:17, MacKay says, "The continuing existence of our world . . . hangs moment by moment on the continuance of the upholding word of power of its Creator."

MacKay suggests that things look stable and unchanging not because they are so in some kind of internal, self-existent manner, but because, like a computerized game, they have been programmed to look that way.

Think of a computerized game of billiards.

The balls follow all the rules you'd expect: they go faster if you hit them harder; they roll in straight lines; and they bounce off the sidewalls or off each other.

On the computer screen, the balls appear solid and self-existent, and they follow regular, repeatable patterns of behavior (the "natural laws" of the computer game). But that doesn't mean that the electronic pool balls will continue to exist when you pull the plug on the computer! The pool balls are not solid and stable on their own. Rather, the computer constantly sends signals to the screen to update and maintain the image.

The laws that govern the motion of the balls aren't stable on their own either: if a glitch occurs in the program, the balls will freeze and no longer follow the rules.

Similarly, MacKay says, the matter, energy, and laws of nature of this universe are not of themselves intrinsically self-existing and stable; nor did God simply start them off and then leave them alone.

--pp. 37-38.

So God does a miracle. Is He "fighting" or "breaking" the laws of nature? Or is He jiggering a program He created?

Clearly, the miracle will astonish, astound and startle those of us who are "in" or part of the "game." But for God: "Is anything too great for Him?"

Finally. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote some comments about creationism and evolutionism on a website owned by someone who is clearly pro-evolution and, together with his friends, is generally antipathetic to an evangelical worldview. I noted at the time something I wrote here a few days ago: something about how strongly the young-earth creationists seem to control the evangelical homeschooling movement at this time.

In the last few days, since reading Origins and Beyond the Firmament, I have realized how completely the young-earth creationists have controlled my thoughts, too.

I have been wholly taken with the issues that they have established as of prime importance. I have been focused on books and papers that they have published and/or with the writings of people like Hugh Ross and the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement whom they have "taken on" as of primary significance in the origins debates. I have completely ignored the work and writings of evangelical Christian evolutionists like the Haarsmas, Glover, Howard van Till, and National Human Genome Research Institute Director Dr. Francis Collins. It's as if these "others" didn't exist.

And at this point, I'm embarrassed by my omission.

The Haarsmas present bare summary outlines of the evidence modern evolutionists put forward for their views. --It is far deeper than what I was aware of just a few months ago.

The young-earthers, progressive creationists and a large proportion of the Intelligent Design proponents have all said an evolutionary perspective cannot possibly stand . . . and I have read all the reasons they are convinced such a view is illegitimate. Now I think it is time I become better informed about the evidence for such a perspective.

A month or two ago, I ran across and began reading a book, Relics of Eden, that presents a popular summary of what the author claims to be genetic evidence for common descent. The Haarsmas offer an extremely condensed version of some of the same data . . . along with several other lines of evidence . . . of which some I was aware (via the young-earthers, IDers, and progressive creationists), and some I was not.

Suffice to say: the Haarsmas' summaries put these data in a very different light.

I look forward to reading more!

********

Oh. PS. I can't afford the internet connection from where I am. But when I get home, I look forward to reading some of the materials the Haarsmas reference on their website: Faith Alive Resources: Origins.

Letting go . . .

I'm trying to clear out my mailbox and came upon an old piece of correspondence.

Those who know me well know I've been going through a faith crisis for many years. Right now, the pressure seems to be off. But about a year and a half ago, I was feeling it intensely.

Someone wrote to me:

There is a story about a man who was wandering about on the top of a mountain. He slipped, fell, and grasped the edge of a cliff. He was hanging there. So he shouted to the heavens, "Is there anyone up there?" There was no answer. So he really prayed, "Is there anyone, please, up there who can help me?"

An answer came. "Yes I will help you, but you must do exactly as I say."

The man said, "Yes, yes, I will do everything that you say."

The voice said, "Release your grip."

There was silence. One second. Two seconds.

Then the man said, "Is there anyone else up there?"

I replied,

Yes, I've heard this story, and it always elicits laughs in every audience in which I have been present. Except I don't laugh, because it frightens me that I may be that man.