Through a Glass Darkly

An Evangelical Manifesto signed by a number of prominent evangelical leaders was released today. I think it’s an outstanding document.

This is from a conversation I’ve been having with an acquaintance, who is a well known theology professor, about the Jeff Schloss review of Expelled:

Yes, I know a bit about the ISU situation as well, and I agree that Schloss is too soft on ISU, and that he misses some important nuances about the first amendment and academic freedom. Even among my friends in the American Scientific Affiliation, I’ve always argued that the Gonzalez case was an injustice and that his “ID” book is something most Christians can appreciate, whatever their view of “hardcore” ID or creationism.

But this is what troubles me, about this film and many other things: I’m not sure the evangelical movement in the U.S. ever really climbed out of fundamentalism in many ways. Carl Henry’s “Uneasy Conscience” and Francis Schaeffer’s work got evangelicals to engage culture, but in large part the engagement has been a hostile culture war. I think Mark Noll is right and that this posture led to a “scandal of the evangelical mind” in many fields, including two fields in which I have an overlapping scholarly interest: law and the sciences. I’m glad that in recent years there has been more much productive and transformative engagement by evangelicals in many fields, including law and policy (I think of the “For the Good of the Nation” document produced by the National Association of Evangelicals, for example). However, I think the sciences remain an area of high hostility.

The Expelled movied tries to make the case that this hostility is due to enforcement of “Darwinist” orthodoxy. As Jeff Schloss points out in his review, that is true in many quarters, but on the other hand there is a log in our own eye as well. At the end of the day, denying the evidence for common descent is akin to denying that the earth travels around the sun — as even Mike Behe recognizes. I really passionately believe that to become transformers of culture, we evangelicals need to become more creative theologically and apologetically around the reality of common descent. The political ID movement behind Expelled reinforces the “wall” mentality that disallows any constructive engagement between evangelical faith and created reality, IMHO. Talk about “expelled” — I’ve been demonized by some brothers in Christ for even suggesting that we look at the evidence for common descent objectively and try to address it constructively. Somehow this perpetual posture of defensiveness has to change, I think.

Here is a long review of the film Expelled by Westmont College biologist Jeff Schloss. I haven’t seen the film yet, so I can’t offer too much personal comment. However, I’m deeply disturbed by the “Nazi” trope in the film. It’s unfortunate, I think, that the biggest impact of this film likely will be to (further) stifle speech and exploration of the relationship between faith and science in the evangelical community.

On Jesus Creed, guest blogger RJS is exploring the relationship between faith and reason. Here are the categories she proposes:

(1) Faith requires the renunciation of intelligence. Any elaboration here would detract from my principle point - so I will forbear.

(2) Intellectual integrity requires the renunciation of faith. This is a growing view in our world today. Secular humanism and atheism may not be in ascendancy (Alister McGrath, NT Wright, Tim Keller, and Brian McLaren all make this point in various ways) - but the view has become the de facto operating principle for many; the point of departure. More importantly, the accepted alternatives to atheism or materialism do not usually include orthodox Christian faith.

(3) By the skin of one’s teeth one can hold to both faith and integrity. But within this position there is a constant tension. We bracket off the questions and continue to function – barely. Many stories – both of those who “lost faith” and those who “retained faith” include this approach in the mix.

(4) Intellectual integrity demands faith. A modernistic “evidence that demands a verdict” approach. (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Hugh Ross, …)

I would add a fifth response to this taxonomy:

(5) Intellectual integrity is fully compatible with faith but requires honest interaction. There is no proof - some ambiguity remains. Of course honest grappling with all the questions and issues is somewhat unnerving to many. It seems inevitable that some views will be refined or even abandoned in the process and this prospect causes concern. Perhaps it is not true that everything is clear cut. Nonetheless there is a way forward. Exploring the issues does not lead inevitably to deism or liberalism or apostasy.

I grew up with category 4. I’ve moved towards 5, and at times I’ve thought I’ve been there, only to get beaten back to 3. Here’s my question: can you get to 5 with an orthodox Christian faith, or does 5 require that the big challenges between faith and intellectual integrity must be resolved by moving away from orthodoxy?

This may be in bad taste, but I felt compelled to pass it along…

Please join me in remembering a great icon of the entertainment community. The Pillsbury Doughboy died yesterday of a yeast infection and trauma complications from repeated pokes in the belly. He was 71.

Doughboy was buried in a lightly greased coffin. Dozens of celebrities turned out to pay their respects, including Mrs. Butterworth, Hungry Jack, the California Raisins, Betty Crocker, the Hostess Twinkies, and Captain Crunch. The grave site was piled high with flours.

Aunt Jemima delivered the eulogy and lovingly described Doughboy as a man who never knew how much he was kneaded. Doughboy rose quickly in show business, but his later life was filled with turnovers. He was not considered a very smart cookie, wasting much of his dough on half-baked schemes. Despite being a little flaky at times he still was a crusty old man and was considered a positive roll model for millions.

Doughboy is survived by his wife Play Dough, two children, John Dough and Jane Dough, plus they had one in the oven. He is also survived by his elderly father, Pop Tart. The funeral was held at 3:50 for about 20 minutes.

To understand the Bible as scripture means to reflect on the witnesses of the text transmitted through the testimony of the prophets and apostles. It involves an understanding of biblical history as the activity of God testified to in scripture. In contrast, a history-of-religions approach attempts to reconstruct a history according to the widely accepted categories of the Enlightenment, as a scientifically objective analysis according to the rules of critical research prescribed by common human experience. … [T]he two approaches are different in goals, assumptions and results

— Brevard Childs

What a shame.

Carrying on its tradition of announcing important breakthroughs on April 1, Google announced today its new “custom time” feature for Gmail. You can now back-date an email so that it appears in proper sequence in the recipient’s in-box. Say, for example, you forgot to email grandma on her birthday. No problem; use the “custom time” feature and send an email from the past! Although this might raise some problems with respect to the space-time continuum, Google explains that “Gmail utilizes an e-flux capacitor to resolve issues of causality.”

Also today, Eisenbraun’s has put out a new catalog of resources for the study of the ancient near east. I’m particularly hankering after the cuneiform typeface insert.

Westminster Seminary has announced the supension of Peter Enns due to the controversy over his book Inspiration and Incarnation. What a shame.

Pete’s book was and is very important to me personally, and I believe the questions he raised are vital to the future of evangelical faith. We cannot ignore the humanity of the Bible. People need meat, not just milk. We have learned to integrate the emotional aspects of spirituality into our practice through praise music and small support groups, and that is a good thing. But educated, urban people also need food for the mind.

The shamanistic recitation of magical dogmatic phrases such as “inerrancy” is not meat. Meat is actually digging in to the Bible God gave us, in all of its maddening situatedness, strangeness, and diversity. Meat is recognizing that what it means for God not to “err” in communicating to human beings might not be exactly what we would expect. Meat is working to understand the authority of scripture in the context of the whole of God’s revelation, including what He reveals to us through the natural and social sciences, literature, the arts, and philosophy.

If we evangelicals can’t move on to the meat, we’ll starve. If we can’t learn to eat the meat, how will we be different than the thousands of other fundamalist sects of the world’s religions that lack contact with reality? If we can’t learn to eat the meat, how can we expect our young people to hold onto their faith? If we can’t develop a more robust and well-rounded consensus on the nature, authority, and interpretation of scripture, a consensus that isn’t just rigidly formulaic, evangelicalism will become an irrelevant emotionalist backwater. At least that’s my two cents as a moderately educated lay person.