Reformed Academic

Evolution and the Bible

2011-12-08T20:01:00.001-08:00

In connection with my recent post “Church and Modern Science,” Pastor Rob Schouten complained (in a public discussion on Facebook) that Reformed Academic “gives no evidence of grappling with the extraordinary problems of the theory of evolution,” and expressed the wish that we would “spend some time analyzing the manifest weaknesses” of that theory. This is a fair request, and in what follows I will attempt to respond to it.

I would like to begin by slightly reformulating the question. Rev. Schouten, if I understand him correctly, asks us especially to be diligent in exposing scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theories. Generally, however, we (and no doubt Rev. Schouten himself) look for these and bring them to the fore because of the religious

difficulties we as Bible-believing Christians have with evolution. Pinpointing scientific weaknesses will not, I am convinced, remove all these difficulties. Therefore, although not ignoring the existence of scientific problems, I will focus on the religious ones. The urgency of the topic was brought home to me once more by a recent publication by Reformed theologian C. John Collins (professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis), which he titled Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were And Why You Should Care (Crossway, 2011).

In this blog posting I will follow that book quite closely.

Scientific weaknesses: are they conclusive?

But first a few remarks on possible scientific weaknesses of the theory of evolution. I can be brief here because, as it happens, I have earlier dealt with this issue. I did so in an essay titled “Teaching Evolution at Our Schools – Why and How,” which was posted on this blog on 30 October 2009, and can be found under my name under “Collected Papers.” Therein I listed a number of questions that must be considered in connection with evolutionary theories (see especially section 5, “How we should teach evolution (II),” and section 6, “Let’s keep in mind the nature of science”).

Since the information is available on the blog, I will not repeat my arguments, but I do want to point out, as I did in the paper, that the questions I raised are among the reasons why I personally have difficulties accepting the naturalistic, macro-evolutionary picture of development “from molecules to man.” (Other reasons are of a religious nature.) At the same time I made clear in my paper that the scientific evidence for evolution is very strong and that in all honesty we should admit this. In this connection I referred to the very pointed admission of young-earth biochemist Todd Charles Wood (who rejects evolution not on scientific but on religious grounds) that denying the very significant scientific evidence simply won’t do.

I realize that most of his fellow young-earth creationists will disagree with Wood’s estimate of the theory’s strength and will refer to the work of young-earth scientists, and perhaps even to that of “creation science.” I understand their concern. It points to the route I myself once followed. My intensive reading of both young-earth and old-earth creationists as well as that of evolutionary scientists, Christians and non-Christians (and also my recognition of the practical applications of scientific theories), convinced me that modern science, including evolutionary science, must be taken far more seriously than often happens in our circles, and that our habit of denying the evidence and replacing it with pseudo-scientific alternatives is not only wrong but also dangerous. The reasons I have given in previous posts. They include the evidence provided not just by biology but by the majority of the modern sciences, the urgent need to interact with our culture, the fact that our attitude can form a serious stumbling block for our own people, not least for ill-prepared students among us, and that it is bound to cause problems in our evangelistic efforts. The last-mentioned factor, I have suggested, is probably among the reasons why a number of outstanding orthodox theologians have publicly accepted one version or another of evolutionary creationism.

Denying the historicity of Adam and Eve

Although other religious difficulties can be mentioned, the most serious challenge Christians have to deal with are scientific findings that are claimed by scientists to make it impossible any longer to believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve (and all that this implies for our understanding of Scripture). The denial of their historicity is not a novel development. Originally it was based on the study of fossils, which appeared to give evidence of the existence of pre-Adamites and of a much earlier appearance of the human species than the biblical record seems to allow. More recently, of course, the position has been greatly strengthened by the striking advances in modern genomics.

These scientific findings, and especially the ones in genomics, have convinced even many Christians that belief in the existence of Adam and Eve can no longer be defended. Among them is well-known geneticist Francis S. Collins, one-time leader of the Human Genome Project, author of the best-selling autobiography The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006), and one of the founders of the blog BioLogos. The idea is being propagated even in the Reformed camp. There was much consternation a few years ago when two Calvin College theologians, at a meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, professed their adherence to the view held by Francis Collins. At that same meeting C. John Collins presented a paper, later published under the title “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters,” wherein he outlined “the other side” of the issue. (For the relevant papers see Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, v. 62, n. 3, September 2010.) Collins’ newly published book is an extension of the paper he gave at the ASA meeting. (Note: In the present blog posting, “Collins” refers to C. John Collins, not to Francis Collins.)

Biblical evidence

Dr. C. John Collins
Professor of Old Testament
Covenant Seminary

How does Collins deal with the challenge? He begins (in chapter 2) by describing the “shape of the biblical story,” noting that the Bible consists not of unconnected episodes dealing with topics like morality, spiritual guidance, theology, devotion, and so on (although these matters are indeed being taught), but that it takes the form of a coherent, overarching, worldview-shaping narrative. Genesis 1 forms the beginning of that redemptive-historical narrative and sets the stage for all that is to follow: Eden, the fall, the need for redemption, Christ’s position as the “second Adam,” his sacrifice, resurrection and ascension, the judgment to come, and the ultimate restoration of all things. The historicity of this narrative, which assures us that our beliefs are not the stuff of dreams but are based on reality, is of utmost importance, and Collins makes a point of affirming it, giving special attention to the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. These chapters, he writes, are historical in the sense “that the author wanted his audience to believe that the events recorded really happened” (p. 34). This does not mean that Genesis 1 and following chapters are written according to modern historiographical standards, or in precise chronological order, or in complete detail. Nor does it mean that no figurative language has been used. It does mean that Genesis 1 speaks of events that actually happened.

The historicity of the first chapters of the Bible implies the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first humans. Although, as we will see, Collins is willing to go quite a distance in considering the conclusions of modern science, the historicity of Adam and Eve (or at least of “an” Adam and Eve) is for him nonnegotiable. The rest of the Bible requires it. As he points out, their actual existence as the ancestors of all humans – the fact that they were at the “headwaters” of human history – also accounts for the unity of the human race. The same historicity shows that the presence of sin in our world was not a natural “given” (which in fact would mean that God should be held responsible for it), but that it was the result of the disobedience of the first human couple, a disobedience that affects all their descendants. Only by accepting the story of a good creation which was marred by human disobedience, Collins will argue at greater length in a later chapter, are we able not only to understand the rest of the Bible but also make sense of the world in which we live.

Before turning to the latter point, he gives (in chapter 3) biblical evidence for the historicity of the first humans, listing texts in both the Old and New Testament that refer, directly or indirectly, to creation and to the existence of Adam and Eve as humanity’s first parents through whom sin entered the world. Many of these references are familiar – especially those we find in the Gospels, the Pauline Letters, and Revelation – but it is good to be given what looks like a fairly inclusive list. It affirms what we already knew, namely that the historicity of Adam and Eve – and of the record of creation in its entirety – does inform the biblical message and that questioning it raises very serious problems.

Here a difficult issue must be raised: Does such questioning necessarily imply a denial of the Bible’s authority as such, and must it therefore be qualified as unbelief? The issue is difficult because there are Christians who, while questioning the historicity of Adam and Eve, yet appear to believe with all their heart in the reality of sin and the need for salvation in Christ. Among those who have struggled with this question is Tim Keller, founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, who accepts a version of evolutionary creationism but, like Collins, insists on the historicity of Adam and Eve. He answers as follows: “When you refuse to take a Biblical author [like Paul] literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the Biblical authority.... That doesn’t mean you can’t have a strong, vital faith yourself, but I believe such a move can be bad for the church as a whole, and it certainly can lead to confusion on the part of laypeople.” Collins, more briefly, describes any such questioning as an alternative that is “less satisfactory, and possibly even disastrous” (p. 133).

Common human experience

In the introduction to his book Collins announced as one of his goals “to argue that the traditional position on Adam and Eve, or some variation of it, does the best job of accounting not only for the Biblical materials but also for our everyday experience as human beings....” (p. 13). And therefore, he added, possible difficulties we encounter may mean that we should try making some adjustments to the traditional view, rather than discarding it altogether. Showing the link between the biblical narrative and everyday human experience is the topic of Chapter 4, which I think contains some of the most helpful material in the book, especially by arguing that science does not necessarily have the last word in determining what is true and real.

Collins begins with the biblical teaching that God made humankind in his image. That image can be interpreted in three ways, namely as resemblance (humans resemble God in some ways, such as the possession of intelligence, the ability to communicate by means of language, a sense of morality, a sense of beauty, and so on), as representation (Adam and Eve were appointed God’s vice-regents and given dominion), and as relational (humans were made to live in community with God and with their fellows). Collins admits the validity of all three explanations but focuses on the resemblance aspect, pointing out that the specific characteristics and capacities associated with the divine image are unique to humans and also that they are universal. Unless they can be proven to be the result of natural selection alone – a possibility which Collins says even some evolutionists question – the image serves as an argument for both humankind’s special creation and for the unity of the human race, a unity that various scientists are questioning. (Collins does believe, I should add, that scientific evidence points to an early date for the creation of Adam and Eve – he suggests a date before 40,000 B.C. – p. 117).

For a scientific theory to be acceptable, Collins writes, it must account “for the whole range of evidence,” and therefore also for the whole range of human experience, including the deep-seated desires, fears, and intuitions that all humans, both Christians and non-Christians, share. For example, there is, and there always has been, also in ancient pagan societies, a craving for human community governed by love and justice, just as there has always been a yearning for God, for redemption, forgiveness, moral transformation, for immortality and a blessed afterlife. These human cravings and experiences point to a dissonance between life as we experience it and as we feel it should be, and they help explain the profound sense of loss which is felt by all humans, and to which poets throughout the ages have borne witness. The universality of these experiences and longings, Collins writes, was traditionally held as stemming from a common origin. Its only satisfactory explanation is found in the story of Genesis 1 to 3.

In short, Collins reminds us here that there are “non-scientific,” historical, experiential, and even common sense reasons to believe in the uniqueness of humanity, its special creation, its unity, and also in the biblical message of its fall. While reading the chapter I thought that reference could also be made to Art. 5 of the Belgic Confession, which states that we believe in the divine origin of the books of the Bible first and foremost “because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they contain the evidence of this in themselves; for even the blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled.” This type of argument is applicable when we are resisting other assaults upon the faith, such as the denial of God’s very existence. I was reminded of C.S. Lewis’s fine essay “On Obstinacy in Belief,” wherein he speaks of knowledge of God “by acquaintance”: God is willing to make himself known to his people, also through the experiences of their lives as believers, as “the increasingly knowable Lord” (emphasis added).

Scientific aspects

Finally, in chapter 5, Collins gives some attention to the relevant science. I have to admit that I did not find this the clearest part of the book and I hope that I present his arguments fairly. In any case, he questions the widely accepted scientific claim that DNA evidence necessarily points to a population of several thousand from which humanity descended. He adds, however, that even if there should have been more than two ancestors, we still don’t “necessarily have to ditch all traditional views of Adam and Eve” (p. 120). One possibility is that Adam was the chieftain of a tribe, serving as its “federal” head and representative, and that therefore his trespass affected all those connected with him. While not, as far as I can tell, openly challenging the widely accepted idea of a transition from pre-Adamite hominid to human, Collins makes a point of rejecting the idea that such a transition could have taken place by natural means. If it indeed happened, then a special divine “refurbishing” of the pre-existing hominid must have taken place. That is, the image of God must have been bestowed on him. Humans are a special creation and, alone among all creatures, are made in God’s image, an image that was bestowed on them at creation.

What are we to do?

I expect that many among us will question Collins’ suggestions on a number of these points, insisting that he goes “way too far” in his willingness to consider scientific theories. It is possible that he does. He is, however, not alone among believers to take scientific findings seriously: there are other Christian thinkers who have drawn similar conclusions. Among them are apologist C.S. Lewis, Old Testament scholar Derek Kidner, and theologian John Stott. Collins in fact discusses the position of these men. Another well-known theologian who could have been mentioned in this connection is Tim Keller, who a few years ago published a paper explaining his position (similar, on various points, to that of Collins, Lewis, Kidner, and Stott) in considerable detail. That paper, which he titled “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople” can be found on this blog under Collected Papers.

I expect that some readers will also ask why we even pay attention to a book whose author, although affirming the historicity of the first chapters of the Bible, is nevertheless willing to consider the feasibility of scientific theories that are in conflict with the way in which we have traditionally interpreted these chapters. In answering this question I repeat what I have argued before, which is that the only responsible way of dealing with the religious difficulties posed by modern science is to face these difficulties squarely, study the issues carefully and honestly, and (not in the last place) acquaint ourselves with the way in which orthodox, well-informed Christian thinkers – scientists, theologians, and others – are attempting to meet them. For this, surely, is one of the matters that must be tackled “together with all the saints.” Ignoring the problems, while understandable, will not resolve them. Nor is it (if I take our tradition as at all normative) the course we ought to follow as Christians. Where would we be today if our ancestors had simply ignored/denied scientific challenges and forced us to live with unnecessary disconnects between the Bible and a universally accepted scientific conclusion, such as, for example, the heliocentric theory?

By saying this I am not attempting to diminish the difficulties we are facing today. They are daunting. Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck wrote a century ago that not even “a generation or an age” may be able to resolve all the questions that arise in connection with modern learning; it is God who in the course of history must bring light into the darkness. We may have no choice but to live for now with a disconnect – as many a faithful Christian is in fact doing. (In this vein, it may be that some “evolutionary creationists” are too confident about their resolution of the problems, and Todd Wood’s request of them to say “I don’t know” is worth affirming.) But thanks to God and the work of his Spirit, there is no reason for despair. As Art. 5 of the Belgic Confession teaches, and as Collins reminded us, our confidence in the truth of Scripture and of all it reveals does not depend on our ability to reconcile modern science with the Bible. I believe that if we keep this in mind we can be far less fearful when continuing to deal (as indeed we must) with the challenges raised by modern science.

Church and Modern Science

2011-10-22T09:02:00.000-07:00

This post is inspired by a recently published report of the Barna Research Group that contains some alarming news about the number of young Christians who leave their churches. The research for the report, which is titled “Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church,” appears to have focused primarily on North American evangelical churches and groups, but the findings have relevance for other churches, including our own.

This is not to say that we are in the same position as the churches which the Barna Group investigated. According to the Barna Report, “nearly three out of every five young Christians (59%) disconnect either permanently or for an extended period of time from church life after age 15.” Our federation does not keep records of the number of people who leave and therefore, unfortunately, I cannot back up my conclusion with statistics, but it seems very unlikely to me that the number of young people leaving the CanRC comes even close to that mentioned by the Barna Group. Nor do I see evidence of the same pervasive criticism of our church by its younger members that seem to plague the churches on which the Barna Group focuses. Yes, some young adults leave – often, I believe, to join another church. But as I discussed in an earlier post on this blog (“Are We Too Isolationist?”) many others are actively involved in the church and its projects. Instead of a decrease in church- and evangelistic activity by our younger members, there has, in the last few decades, been a very significant increase.

The need for cultural involvement

Even so, we are not immune to the negative developments the Barna Group reports. Rather than assuming that it has “arrived,” a Reformed church must always be reforming. That means, among other things, that as church community we are to be fully aware of the challenges of an evolving and ever-changing culture and of our own position within that culture. Such awareness is necessary for the sake of our culture itself. In order to fulfill its task with respect to the world – that is, in order to be a salt and light – the church must know its society, interact with it, be able to deal with the questions it raises and, not in the last place, be acquainted with its needs. The church’s awareness of the surrounding culture is also necessary for the sake of the church members, not least the younger ones. Their level of education and their intense use of modern means of communication ensure that, far more than any generation before them, they are constantly involved in the world around them and exposed to the spiritual challenges it poses. In order to understand and help those in their charge, pastors, teachers, and other leaders must be sure to know the nature and the challenges of today’s culture in its widest sense.

In that respect there is room for self-examination. As the Barna Report again makes clear, by demonizing facets of our culture without further ado – that is, without proper knowledge and honest evaluation – we alienate those “in the know.” Our blog, as its readers know, has long been concerned with one such case of demonizing in our own circles, namely our church community’s negative view and sometimes actual maligning of modern science. In what follows I will focus on that issue. I am doing this with reference to Reason #3 of the Barna Report (“Churches come across as antagonistic to science”). Because to a large extent the prevailing attitude among us is inspired by the desire to protect Christians from spiritual dangers, I will give some attention also to Reason #1 (“Churches seem overprotective”). I will not, however, go into the various aspects of the church’s perceived over-protectiveness that the Report mentions. Perhaps we can return to those on another occasion, or perhaps a reader wants to comment on them. Indeed, on any of the items in the Report, and on the present essay, reader-input is most welcome.

Scripture and science

Our main concern for now is with the relationship between faith and modern science. Here follows the Barna Report’s summary of the complaints in this area:

One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.

At least in this respect the situation in evangelical churches is quite similar to that in the CanRC. The nature of the conflicts among us is well known. On the one hand there are the proponents of what is called Young-Earth Creationism (YEC), and on the other those who believe science clearly indicates that the earth is much older than a literal reading of Genesis 1 suggests. The latter position, incidentally, was until quite recently considered lawful in Reformed circles but is now widely censored, even considered heretical. Of course, the disagreements do not stop here. In addition to the old-earthers, there are Reformed Christians, scientists and others, who conclude that the evidence for evolution is significant and accept to varying degrees one or other version of what is often called theistic evolution. They realize the problems involved in such a position but believe they cannot deny the evidence and pray that one day God will lighten their and our darkness in this respect.

Christian scientists are of course not the only Christians to consider the possibility of a divinely guided process of evolution. Their position is shared by an increasing number of orthodox theologians and apologists who adopt it not just for scientific, but also, and especially, for evangelistic and pastoral reasons. Names that come to mind are those of Tim Keller, John Stott, Bruce Waltke, and N.T. Wright. Among the theologians who have publicly explained their position on the issue is Tim Keller, whose “apologia” has been announced and posted on our blog (“Tim Keller on Evolution and the Bible”). Keller’s position is tentative; he admits the difficulties evolution poses for Bible-believing Christians and insists that under all circumstances the Bible, properly interpreted, must have the last word. Meanwhile he looks for possibilities of reconciling Scripture and modern science, and in the introduction to his paper he shows the necessity of such a reconciliation for the sake both of believing Christians and of unbelievers we seek to draw to the church. To quote from his introduction:

Many believers…see the medical and technological advances achieved through science and are grateful for them. They have a very positive view of science. How then can they reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their theological beliefs? Seekers and inquirers about Christianity can be even more perplexed. They may be drawn to many things about the Christian faith, but, they say, ‘I don’t see how I can believe the Bible if that means I have to reject science.’

Keller’s arguments warrant our attention. We are usually told that upholding the YEC position is necessary to protect our youth. Letting go of a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1, we are warned, means establishing a slippery slope: all of Scripture may then be interpreted symbolically. That risk indeed exists, especially if no theological help is forthcoming for those who struggle with the problem (and if the work of Christians who do try to find an answer is being censored, as happens far too often among us). On the other hand, we hardly ever hear of the opposite danger, as described by Tim Keller and as noted in the Barna Report. Also worthy of notice is the negative implication our present position has for evangelism. This is true not only when we are bringing the gospel to intellectuals. I have met the same objection when involved in evangelism in a downtown area where the level of education is very low. It does not surprise me that evangelists and apologists are in the forefront of those who work at bridging the perceived chasm between science and Scripture.

Of course, the challenges of modern science must not be underestimated. They come not only from biology (especially genetics), but also from other areas such as paleontology, geology, astronomy, and nuclear physics. We should not forget, however, that orthodox Christians have faced serious conflicts between Scripture and science before and have, to the best of their ability, resolved them. As a result, Christian scientists in the past could pursue their vocation with their church’s blessing. It is time for us to do what we can to follow that example. This means that with Augustine, Calvin, and their numberless followers we stop rejecting science and prayerfully support Christian scientists who attempt to do their work as part of the cultural mandate, and at the same time try to resolve the problems to which we referred. And of course, we should learn from the work of other Christian scholars involved in this area, such as theologians, philosophers, and apologists – including those belonging to other churches. After all, we do not have to resolve these difficulties on our own; we may and should do it “together with all the saints.” Reconciling faith and science is not an easy job, but if other Christians are attempting it, and if our ancestors were willing to tackle it, so should we. If we don’t, I fear that we will succumb to sectarianism and lose all possibilities of properly interacting with our culture.

Getting to know modern science

In brief, I suggest that instead of maligning science we learn to see it, as our Reformed ancestors did, as a gift of God and give thanks for it. It is true that God’s gifts can be and often are abused, and our attitude toward science (and especially to the ideologies to which it has given rise) must always be a critical one. But we should be sure that we know what we are criticizing, and why we do it, which means that we must do our utmost to know what modern science is really about.

How are we to effect a change in our attitude toward science? A first step for Reformed Christians may well be to consult the past and get acquainted with the history of both Young-Earth Creationism and of the much older Christian (and Reformed) tradition on the relation between science and Scripture. In the latter tradition, as I already mentioned, science was taken seriously. Realizing that many of its findings could not be gainsaid, the majority of orthodox theologians and other scholars accepted these findings and helped believers to deal with them. A case in point is the theory of a non-central and moving earth in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, and the apparent problems connected with geological and other evidence of an ancient earth some 200 or 300 years later.

Such, then, was the attitude to science in the Reformed past. It was only later that young-earth creationism with its rejection of modern science appeared on the scene, presented itself as providing the only acceptable biblical approach to science, and was accepted as true not just in adventist and other fundamentalist churches (although there first of all) but even in some Reformed circles. Some years ago I wrote about these developments in a paper titled “Young-Earth Creationism: A History.” The story is instructive and I suggest you read it. The paper was introduced via this blog posting, and you can find it on our blog under our “Collected Papers”.

A second step is to get acquainted with the work not just of Young-Earth Creationists, but also of other scientists – especially Christian ones, including theistic evolutionists. Please note: I recommend this not because I endorse the point of view of every possible Christian scientist, which I don’t, but because it may help to ensure a sorely needed informed discussion on the matter in question. Young-Earth Creationism and even “creation science” are widely proclaimed in our church media, and occasionally even from our pulpits, as the one and only orthodox position, while a serious discussion on their background and validity is lacking. Opposite opinions are routinely censored, and the “official” position is in fact established by what amounts to majority vote. One of the saddest incidents in this area happened when a few years ago non-YEC positions that had been discussed on an academic blog run by church members were officially attacked in our church magazine, and when that magazine refused to publish a response by the “accused,” while continuing to open its pages to further attacks on them. Such things ought not to happen among us, and I believe they can be avoided if spiritual leaders and church members at large are willing to study the issue from both sides. This includes, as I suggested, acquainting themselves with the arguments of Christian non-YEC scholars. A good number of them have described their work in a way that is accessible to the lay reader. I am thinking of authors like Francis Collins (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence of Belief), Owen Gingerich (God’s Universe), and Davis A. Young (Christianity and the Age of the Earth), to mention only a few.

And then there are of course the blogs. Many in our churches are well acquainted with Young-Earth Creationist Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (at least one church even promotes it publicly). It should indeed be consulted, but so should blogs by Christians that present a non-YEC position. The blog of an OPC church member and geologist, Questioning Answers in Genesis, and Biologos are examples, as is our blog, Reformed Academic. Not in the last place, we should give attention to explanations given by the contemporary pastors and evangelists who consider the possibility of theistic evolution. We may well disagree with them, but rather than rejecting their work out of hand, we should listen to their arguments, be aware of the reasons they give for their choice, realize the difficulties they are contending with, and (not in the last place!) join them in thinking about possible solutions. We need each other’s help. And within our church community we should be allowed, openly and publicly, to extend that help.

To conclude: my request is for a less fearful, more honest, and more open approach to the issue in question, and therefore for the intellectual freedom that we enjoyed in the past. This would mean that young-earth creationism is tolerated and discussed, but that the public discussion of other views is also tolerated – and indeed facilitated. The present situation smacks of censorship and entails dangers that we cannot afford to ignore any longer. It tends to sectarianism, alienates many of our students, creates serious difficulties for our scientists and for others who cannot accept the established Creationist view, makes it hard for us to interact with our culture, separates us from much of both Christian and secular scholarship, and can be a serious stumbling block in our evangelistic efforts. If the Barna Report helps convince our church community of the need to rethink its position and policies in the area of science, then it has served us well.

Scientists and their Place in the Church

2011-10-01T07:38:00.000-07:00

Andy Crouch has been mentioned on this blog a couple of times in the past year, in the context of literature and the arts. Today we commend to you this excellent piece entitled “What I Wish My Pastor Knew About…The Life of a Scientist”. I have written briefly about some aspects of this a decade ago, in a piece entitled “Science: A Cultural Activity”, but this new article represents a much more thorough and insightful presentation on the life of a scientist, and how congregations and pastors can positively interact with their scientist members.

After discussing the delight & wonder, intellectual humility, frustration, collaboration, competition, risk, isolation, and specialization which characterize the life of a scientist, Crouch addresses the topic of ministering to scientists. A key sentence in his conclusion is: “If there is one thing that Christians ought to insist on when we approach questions of science and religion, it seems to me that it is the primacy of persons—the persons who practice science, and the persons who are affected by its practice.” We welcome your engagement with this inside look into the life of a scientist.

What Are We To Do With N.T. Wright?

2011-09-01T14:50:00.000-07:00

The work of N.T. Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham and one of the world’s leading New Testament scholars, is the object of heated controversy among Reformed and evangelical theologians. This controversy might not have aroused the interest of most lay people, since much of it revolves around theological issues that would normally draw the attention mainly or exclusively of specialists. But as it happens, Wright is also the widely-read author of more popular religious works. These books, ranging from pastoral writings to apologetics and from ethics to doctrines of justification and salvation, have made him a leading defender of the faith for many non-theologians, including a good number of Reformed ones. His popular writings have, in fact, given him a status approaching that of another leading Anglican author and apologist, namely C.S. Lewis.

I too have found Wright’s books enlightening and have written positive reviews of a number of them (most recently of his After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters). In view of the reservations about his theology, however, I think the time has come to address the question whether or not he is indeed a trustworthy guide. Some among us do not think so – every so often we read or hear of pastoral warnings that Reformed folk would do better to ignore Wright and go to Reformed guides for answers to their questions. Are these warnings justified? Or, assuming that there are indeed problems with parts of Wright’s theology, are there also aspects that deserve our positive attention? This, I may as well admit at the outset, is my conclusion, which I hope to substantiate in what follows.

For this essay I have relied on two recent publications on Wright’s views. One is a book-length critique of his work by well-known Reformed-Baptist author John Piper, a man who has long interacted with Wright’s ideas, is highly critical of several of them, but attempts to evaluate them fairly. The book in question is The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Crossway, 2007) [freely available online]. The second is Wright’s answer to Piper and other critics, titled Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (IVP Academic, 2009). The two books of course contain far more information than I am able to do justice to in a brief survey. I will be able to mention only some of the points in the debate. Nevertheless, I hope that my remarks will help us at least to begin coping with the question I raised in the title of this article. Reactions are therefore invited – also from those who have studied Wright’s work in more detail and are able to add to my remarks and where necessary correct them.

The New Perspective

Wright is a scholar of the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP). The New Perspective is not easy to define, both on account of its complexity and because there are important differences among NPP adherents. A common element, however, is that all find fault with Luther’s understanding of the nature of Paul’s controversy with the Jews. Luther’s main error, they argue, was that in attempting to explain Paul he ignored the historical context of Paul’s letters and believed that he could equate the issues at stake in the first century with those he himself had to deal with 1500 years later. Luther’s burning question, like that of many people in the late Middle Ages, was how to find a merciful God and so assure his personal salvation. Roman Catholicism at the time placed a heavy emphasis on the role of works (think of the scandal of the indulgences), rather than on the all-sufficiency of divine grace. Unable to find peace by doing the prescribed works, Luther at last found the answer to his question in the gospel of justification by faith (Romans 1:17). Lutheranism, as well as other branches of the Reformation, thereupon began to see Paul’s issue with the Judaists of his day, and also with Jewish Christian who insisted that pagan converts must become Jews (see Paul’s letter to the Galatians), as similar to the Reformers’ struggle against Roman Catholic semi-Pelagianism. First-century Judaism, in short, became the mirror image of the late-medieval church and Paul was fighting the same battle in his days as the Reformers did in theirs.

It is this interpretation that Wright and other NPP scholars reject. They refer to newly discovered documents of the period and argue that first-century Judaism must be explained within its own context, which, the documents show, was very different from that of Reformation Europe. Their conclusion is that in the first-century context “works of the law” had little to do with Reformation ideas of works-righteousness. The Jews Paul was dealing with knew that membership in the covenant was not because of merit but because of God’s grace, and obedience to the laws of the covenant (Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, dietary laws, separation from Gentiles, and so on) was again not seen as meritorious, but as the prescribed means to maintain one’s status within the covenant. These “works of the law” functioned at the same time as the means that kept Jews and Gentiles separate. Paul, on the other hand, celebrates the coming together of Jews and Gentiles which, as he writes in Ephesians 3:1-7, is “the very heart of the mystery of the Messiah, the secret which had not been revealed before but now is on public display” (Wright, 173). (The most important text for the NPP, I should mention here, is Romans 3:28: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too.”)

Wright’s covenant theology

According to this new perspective, then, the error of the first-century Jews with which Paul struggled was not their works-righteousness as the Reformers defined the term. It was Judaism’s ethnocentrism and exclusivism, its forgetting that God’s covenant with Abraham was altogether inclusive; that in Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Wright believes that Christians often have held a similar limited view; that like the Jews they have forgotten (or underemphasized) the cosmic and missional nature of the Abrahamic covenant.

All this brings him to a matter he has written about in greater detail in his work Surprised by Hope (HarperOne, 2008), which deals with the nature and scope of salvation. Many believers, he says, see salvation as “going to heaven when you die.” That answer, however, is individualistic and therefore inadequate. It suggests a spiritual geocentrism: the belief that the Sun revolves around us instead of the other way around. In the Bible salvation is not God’s rescue of individuals from the world but the rescue of the world itself, the cosmos in its entirety. Christ’s blood was shed for the forgiveness of our sins, but also for bringing in the Gentiles (Wright, 171). Not only the individual, but “the whole creation is to be liberated from its slavery to decay (Romans 8:21)” (Wright, 10). The covenant, Wright says, is to be explained in these terms, and the doctrine of justification must be rooted in the single biblical narrative (101). One of Wright’s major themes is: “It is central to Paul, but almost entirely ignored in perspectives old, new, and otherwise, that God had a single plan all along through which he intended to rescue the world and the human race, and that this single plan was centred upon the call of Israel, a call which Paul saw coming to fruition in Israel’s representative, the Messiah” (Wright, 35; italics in the original).

The acknowledgement that the Messiah fulfilled Israel’s call as its representative plays a role in Wright’s explanation of Romans 9-11. It also gives further substance to his warning that we must not de-Judaize Paul and his message (Wright, 195). As Jesus himself said to the Samaritan woman, “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). Wright’s reminder that there is a history of salvation is reminiscent of what Reformed people have come to know as the redemptive-historical approach. Like his emphasis on the covenant, the reminder should therefore resonate with Reformed believers.

What about personal salvation?

Although Piper rejects much of Wright’s version of the NPP, he does have praise for some of Wright’s contributions and is especially grateful for “the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham” (Piper, 15f.). He recognizes that this insight “accounts for some of [Wright’s] reactions to the individualism and pietism that mark some preaching of the gospel,” and agrees that “there simply aren’t enough preachers who show the gospel to be what it is, the magnificent announcement of the Lordship of Jesus, not only over my personal problems, but over all of history and all the nations and all the environment.” The preaching of the gospel must indeed be rescued from “myopic, individualistic limitations” (Piper, 81). All this is close to Wright’s implicit questioning of “a non-historical soteriology the long and the short of which is ‘my relationship with God’ rather than ‘what God is going to do to sort out the world and his people’” (Wright, 61).

At the same time, however, Piper fears that Wright’s strong emphasis on the covenant’s and the gospel’s global reach threatens to place other biblical teachings in jeopardy. He is concerned, for example, about Wright’s view that the gospel, being the proclamation of Christ’s lordship, is not to be equated with the message about how we are to get saved (Piper, 18). But isn’t this what the gospel is about as well? The question “How am I to be saved” is a legitimate and indeed an urgent one which, Piper rightly argues, needs to be answered more clearly than Wright does. “The kind of gospel preaching that will flow from Wright’s spring will probably have global scope to it,” Piper comments, “but will not deal personally with the human heart of sin with clear declarations of how Christ dealt with sin and how the fearful heart can find rest in the gospel of grace….” (Piper, 101). Piper admits that Wright does not ignore the relevance of the gospel for the individual life of faith and piety and the individual’s search for salvation, but fears that all this does not get the attention in Wright’s system that it receives in traditional protestant theology and in the gospel itself. “What puzzles me,” he writes elsewhere, “is that Wright seems to be able to speak of the gospel without explicitly showing what makes it good news for me” (Piper, 45, note 17).

Imputation

There are other instances where Piper criticizes what he sees as one-sidedness or even errors in Wright’s presentation. Among them are Wright’s definition of “the righteousness of God” as God’s covenant faithfulness (Piper says it is that, but also much more), Wright’s statement that justification denotes a status, namely that of being acquitted and forgiven, rather than moral transformation, and Wright’s questioning of the doctrine regarding the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us. This doctrine, based on such Bible texts as 2 Corinthians 5:21 (“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”), is often referred to as the “marvelous exchange” (Luther’s term), whereby Christ took our sins upon himself so that we might receive his righteousness. The doctrine of imputation has an important place in traditional Reformed teachings on justification: we confess it explicitly in Art. 22 of the Belgic Confession and Answer 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism. Wright questions it on exegetical and other grounds and argues that we are justified not because of imputation but because, having died and been raised with him, we are “in Christ.” This means that we are “summed up in him,” so that what is true of him is true of us (Wright, 104 and passim). He concludes, “To know that one has died and been raised is far, far more pastorally significant than to know that one has, vicariously, fulfilled the Torah” (Wright, 233). I think that he is right here, but isn’t there also biblical evidence for the doctrine of imputation? Why should we not continue to accept both?

Faith and works

More could be said on this matter, but I must turn to what Piper and other critics consider as perhaps Wright’s most striking aberration, namely his remarks about the role of works in judgment and salvation. Most of these occur in chapter 7 of his book, where he deals with the Letter to the Romans. Having come to Romans 2, he quotes the words, “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life….” (vv. 6, 7). He concludes that according to Paul at the judgment to come “the criterion will be, in some sense, ‘works,’ ‘deeds’ or even ‘works of the law.’” He admits that such a conclusion “has naturally been anathema to those who have been taught that…since justification is by faith, there simply cannot be a ‘final judgment according to works’” (Wright, 184). The fact remains, however, that according to Romans 2 God will indeed repay according to works, and this same message occurs elsewhere. The Bible even says that the believer’s good deeds can please the Lord: “Well done, good and faithful servant!” (Wright, 185-7).

Does this mean that Paul teaches legalism, Pelagianism, or synergism (the doctrine that we cooperate with God, each doing his part)? Wright answers this question in the negative and points to the work of Christ’s Spirit in the believers’ lives; it is the Spirit alone who enables them to obey, by faith. Works-righteousness is out of the question. But the Spirit’s work is effective. Humans become “genuinely free, when the Spirit is at work within them so that they choose to act…in ways which reflect God’s image, which give him pleasure, which bring glory to his name, which do what the law had in mind all along…. The danger with a doctrine which says, ‘You can’t do anything and you mustn’t try’ is that it ends up with the servant who, knowing his master to be strict, hid his money in the ground” (Wright, 192f.).

Piper gives much attention to the issue. He agrees with Wright that the life we now live is not irrelevant at the final judgment. To teach otherwise is “unPauline, unpastoral and ultimately dishonouring to God himself” (Piper, 116). But he objects to Wright’s occasional statement that we are justified “on the basis” of our works,” rather than “according to our works” (although he admits that Wright speaks also in more traditional terms of our works as being evidence of the authenticity of our faith) (Piper, 118f.). Nevertheless, Piper’s great concern is that Wright’s teachings may detract from the gospel’s message of justification apart from works. He points out that the rewards that are promised in the Bible do not contribute to a person’s final justification, but are for those who are justified (Piper, 167). In accordance with clear biblical teaching, the authentic Christian faith “looks away from all self-wrought or Spirit-wrought obedience in us to the blood and obedience of Jesus….” (Piper, 149, italics in the original).

Take and read

Wright remarks that in situations of controversy and turbulence people are likely to overstate the point they are trying to make. He refers especially to the protestant Reformation but, as at one point he admits, the same applies to NPP scholars and himself (Wright, pp. 46, 196). Piper has done us a service by pointing to a number of these over-statements and by attempting to correct what he sees as actual errors in Wright’s system. By doing so, and by inviting Wright’s response, he has allowed us to hear both sides of the controversy.

I have learned from Piper and recommend his book. He is right, for example, when he questions Wright’s too rosy picture of first-century Judaism, pointing out, among other things, that ethnocentrism implies reliance on oneself and is therefore indistinguishable from works-righteousness (Piper, 155-8). Also noteworthy are his pleas that the spiritual needs of the “ordinary folk,” the person in the pew, not be ignored, and his defence of the gospel of justification by faith, apart from works. We must remember, however, that Wright does not deny this gospel. Salvation according to him also is by faith alone. At the same time I am convinced that Wright is also right in drawing attention to the Bible’s strong emphasis on the importance of “works.” This truth must indeed not be ignored, and the question arises: Do we, together with Wright, have to consider the possibility that Reformation theology, rightly anxious to safeguard the gospel of justification by faith, has wrongly underemphasized this aspect? Wright reminds us of Jesus’ own words that not the smallest part of the law has been abrogated by his coming. In a time when the temptation of “cheap grace” is as strong as it has ever been, it is good to be reminded of this truth. As various Reformed scholars have argued (including Anthony Hoeksema and Richard Gaffin), mentioning of a final judgment according to works simply reinforces the notion found elsewhere in Scripture that faith must necessarily issue in works and that, though we are not saved by works, we are not saved without them either. And finally, there is of course Wright’s much-needed reminder of the historical and global sweep of the covenant and of its implications for mission. On all these points we can learn from him.

In conclusion: Yes, Wright must be read critically, and John Piper is doing us a favour not just in showing us this but also in guiding us in our reading. Of course, critical reading is required of us in any case, also in that of Piper himself. If that is kept in mind, I heartily recommend both Piper and the response of N.T. Wright (as well as Wright’s other popular books to which I referred). Whatever the shortcomings of his theology, Wright does open our eyes to aspects of the gospel and its riches that we may be in danger of forgetting. But in case there is still a suspicion that he may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I quote these words of commendation by John Piper himself: “I am thankful for [Wright’s] strong commitment to Scripture as his final authority, his defense and celebration of the resurrection of the Son of God, his vindication of the deity of Christ, his belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct, and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham – and more” (Piper, pp. 15f.).

Academics and Church Membership

2011-07-25T06:46:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Freda, for beginning an important discussion. In this post, I would like to highlight the connection between academics and church membership, by first telling my story and then giving some suggestions.

I grew up with the assumption that the world was cleanly divided into two camps: people in North America were either members of a Canadian Reformed church (CanRC) or they were heathens. How this thinking arose in me is quite unclear, as this was certainly never taught explicitly by parents, teachers, or ministers. But neither was it, as far as I recall (and my recollection is not perfect), taught against, and I have spoken with many who felt similarly, as well as many who didn’t. This remained my view until somewhere during my graduate studies in physics, just under 20 years ago. This despite attending a public school in Fergus for Grades 11-13, where many others attended who belonged to other churches, and where my geography teacher invited me to a discussion of faith & geology (which I ignored impolitely; after all, he couldn’t have been a Christian). Furthermore, as an undergrad at the University of Waterloo, a number of my classmates and even the professor with whom I interacted most were Christians; their invitations to talk about Christianity were equally impolitely rejected. Of course I could not attend Redeemer College where the devil walked in slippers; in Waterloo he walked in wooden shoes. I did not get involved with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF). Fortunately, matters of faith and academics were not entirely sidelined, as I was involved with a Canadian Reformed student fellowship which met in Hamilton about once a month during the academic year and held a retreat during most years. When considering which graduate school to attend, I recalled the map of North America on which “all” the churches were plotted, and its vast USA wasteland: except for Grand Rapids, Laurel, and Lynden, there were no Christians in that heathen land.

So it appears black-and-white thinking was solidly entrenched in me, likely due not entirely to denominational influences and perhaps more due to my own immature personality.

It was not until I received from an elder in Langley CanRC a copy of an early issue of Modern Reformation (I think it might have been the issue themed “Wanted: Thinking Christians”) that I realized my false dichotomy: there were actually confessional, Reformed Christians in North America outside the CanRC. And eventually, I grew to understand that even Baptists, Pentecostals, and Mennonites (etc.) are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Around the same time, thanks to an erudite high-school teacher friend, I became aware of books such as Creation Regained by Al Wolters. And suddenly I soared into the world of academics and faith with newfound wings, and have learned to appreciate (although not without critique) the Reformational philosophy of Dooyeweerd (and his colleagues Schilder and Vollenhoven), and entered with confidence the world of InterVarsity as well as other broader networks of academics and Christians. Along the way, I have grown in my regard for the Reformed distinctives, and am committed to confessional Reformed church membership.

I believe few are today walking in my shockingly insular footsteps of some twenty years ago. But there is still more I think we could grow in, in the area of academics and church membership. We could better prepare our university-bound students to appropriately engage their classmates, their professors, their discipline, rather than stick to those they know. We should send our students into public or Christian universities with confidence, grateful for their background, and not be afraid that too much interaction will dilute their faith. We ought to encourage our students who go to university to be appropriately open to new and challenging ideas, and not just to gain the knowledge and skills they need to get a good job. We should not expect our students to simply carry on the cultural traditions and notions of their fathers, but rather to discern, develop, and deploy their talents for the glory of God and the advancement of the Kingdom in its cosmic scope.

I am encouraged by recent developments in both BC and Ontario in which a student retreat is held prior to the new academic year. But I am discouraged that these discussions are not routinely followed up in regular meetings throughout the year. I would like to encourage those organizing these retreats to set aside time to discuss matters such as those I’ve raised in the previous paragraph, and to promote ongoing conversations perhaps led by members of their own community who are experienced in academics.

Being a Christian and an academic can be an isolating experience. As a member of a congregation, you may be one of only a few who take advanced studies. As a university student, you may be one of only a few Christians. But perhaps our vision is not large enough to see and engage with more of our fellow academics who are Christians, and perhaps we can do more to encourage diligent and significant scholarship.

Are We Too Isolationist?

2011-07-20T13:07:00.000-07:00

Recently blogger Tim Challies posted an essay describing the Christian culture in which he grew up as a child and teenager. Although he does not mention this, the essay, which has as title “The Enemy Next Door,” refers to the Canadian Reformed Churches of which his family at one time were members. Challies’ evaluation of these churches is negative, the main objection being that they were ineffective at evangelism. He contrasts the CanRef track record in evangelism with that of churches of which he subsequently became a member: In the latter much more attention was given to reaching the lost, and far more outsiders came to faith and were baptized. Trying to determine why the churches he grew up in seemed so unconcerned with passing on the gospel, he believes that the underlying reason was that they “often regarded the unbeliever as the enemy.” These churches, he adds, would never openly admit this, but the attitude nevertheless “seemed to be deeply rooted.”

The attitude became evident, he writes, in the fact that children would rarely be allowed to interact with children in the neighbourhood. This prohibition was inspired by the fear of corruption. That fear even affected some of the members’ attitude toward unbelieving friends Tim’s family brought to church: They were “mocked or scorned.” But rather than saving the church’s youth, the attitude had the opposite effect. Having been kept away from the world, and never having seen “the pain and heartbreak that are the inevitable results of forsaking God,” the children in these churches “developed a fascination with the world.” The results were seen in their lifestyle. “I saw more drugs, more drinking, more disrespect and more awful behaviour,” he writes, “in the Christian schools…than I did in public schools.”

Challies then describes the different attitude of his own parents, who allowed their children “to see unbelievers acting like unbelievers” (and so to notice the horrible effects of sin); encouraged them to be friends with neighbourhood kids, and themselves attempted to give unbelieving neighbours “the opportunity to meet the Saviour through them.” He concludes with the warning that when we want to protect ourselves from what we consider the enemy next door, “we are prone to take our eyes off the real enemy; we allow him to slip by, unnoticed…. The real enemy is not next door…. The real enemy, the most dangerous enemy, is within.”

Reception

Challies’ picture of the church of his youth hit a raw spot, and readers’ comments, both on the blog and on Facebook, showed this. Most comments expressed agreement with Challies’ negative assessment. True, there were criticisms as well. They concerned the problem of using children as “missionaries,” as well as what were considered Challies’ unfair criticism of Reformed schools. These are legitimate criticisms of the essay. Another problem is that Challies’ description is dated. It may reflect the inward-looking attitude of the CanRC some twenty years ago, but since then things have changed. Various evangelism projects have come off the ground in the last decade or so, and they are supported by increasing numbers of church members – including a large contingent of young people. Think of Streetlight in Hamilton, Campfire! and Stepping Stones Bible Camps, the short-time mission trips that our young people organize, the many local evangelism endeavours, the various urban mission projects in both eastern and western Canada, the work of church members in Haiti and Mexico. On a broader level, think also of the growing political involvement, especially through ARPA (the Association for Reformed Political Action).

I believe that especially in the case of ARPA the CanRC (and other Reformed churches) fill a gap that evangelicalism all too often left unattended. The same applies to Reformed ecclesiology and the Reformed stress on the intellectual aspects of the faith. In these areas, as many a thoughtful evangelical will admit, Reformed traditions suggest much needed corrections to practices in the evangelical world.

It is true, however, that the emphasis on evangelism and other outreach is a fairly new development and that some of these activities are still in their beginning stages. The description that Challies gives, while especially applying to the earlier years of Canadian Reformed history, is to some extent still applicable today, and his warnings need to be taken to heart even now. Our churches have established themselves, we have our church buildings, our elementary and secondary schools, our seminary, our teachers college, and so on. More time and money can and should be made available to evangelism and other outreach than happened in the past. So let’s express our gratitude to Tim Challies for reminding us of the deficiencies that need our attention. As the Dutch proverb has it: “It’s a friend who shows me my failings.”

Other reasons, other means?

To benefit from the discussion I believe, however, that we have to dig a bit deeper and see if there are additional reasons for the attitude that Challies describes. There is no doubt an element of truth in the suggestion that some of us tend to keep our distance from unbelievers, and that at least one reason is fear of possible evil influences. But we are also heirs of a Reformed tradition that gives less attention to the calling to evangelize than is the case in many other churches. Perhaps it is a result of the fact that for centuries the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (and also in a country like Scotland) was for all practical purposes the privileged church, and that the majority of the citizens were assumed to be acquainted with the gospel. After all, the nation was “Christian,” and everyone knew “the way to the church.” Striking in this respect is that the Belgic Confession in describing the marks of the true church does not mention mission and evangelism, even though that was one of the last commands the resurrected Lord gave to his disciples before his ascension (Matt 28:18ff.).

There are other factors. The Canadian Reformed Churches have always stressed, and rightly so, the importance of doctrinal purity. This is a great benefit and one of the reasons why we attract at least some outsiders to our churches (including, initially, the Challies family). It also helps explain the rapidly increasing interest in Calvinism throughout the evangelical world (see on this John van Popta’s article, “Young, Restless, Reformed” in Clarion, January 1, 2011). This is a reason for gratitude. On the other hand, there is perhaps a tendency to associate our liturgical tradition (for example) too closely with purity of doctrine and therefore to hesitate to make the changes that may enable outsiders to feel more at home in our services.

Then there is the Reformed stress on the cognitive aspect of the faith. As I indicated, this is an asset. Yet is may also mean that we are hesitant in admitting the needs of the emotions. Today, however, we live in a climate that stresses the importance of feeling, and if we are ignoring that aspect we may well set up a stumbling block to outsiders. It may also mean that we put more emphasis on the need for right knowledge than for living the proper Christian life. The Christian faith is not just a matter of knowing, but also, and first of all, of being.

Yet another element may be our vision of the church. We have been taught, again rightly so and in accordance with Art. 28 and 29 of the Belgic Confession, that we must join the true church. But as has been pointed out in recent years, the “ought” too easily evolved into an “is”: We are the true church and since (if the logic is relentlessly followed) there can be no more than one true church, we are the only one. Therefore we tend to be standoffish with respect to other churches and find it difficult to agree that we can learn something from them – for example from those that put the mission mandate front and centre. To suggest that they can teach us something is too easily dismissed as un-Reformed.

The same attitude, incidentally, has meant that there has been limited contact with the writings of other Christians. I still remember the time when many of us believed that the only truly acceptable literature for us was what was written by Reformed authors. Indeed, even today there is significant hesitation to recommend, without severe warnings, the work of Christians who do not belong to our churches (I am thinking of the writings of C.S. Lewis, Tim Keller, N.T. Wright, and various others).

The result has been a kind of isolationism that has been harmful not only to outsiders but to church members themselves as well. For is the Holy Spirit not also working among other Christian believers (1 John 4:2)? I hope that we can find ways and means to cooperate where possible with these believers in our common struggle against an increasingly secular society, in our response to atheistic attacks on the faith, and in our efforts to reach the lost. True, a critical attitude and critical reading are necessary, but that applies even to Reformed theologians and authors. Working with others therefore does not have to imply that we throw away the good things we have inherited from our Reformed ancestors. Nor should we. But again, faithfulness to Scripture and loyalty to the Canadian Reformed tradition do not forbid cooperation with other Bible-believing Christians. There are, by God’s grace, many of them.

Book Review - Holtvlüwer’s Foundations: Sermons on Genesis 1-3

2011-06-09T09:13:00.000-07:00

Late last year, Canadian Reformed minister Rev. Peter Holtvlüwer published a book of sermons on the first few chapters of Genesis. With respect to discussions we’ve had on our blog, it is clear that the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is very important for how we understand the doctrine of creation as well as how we frame conversations regarding Scripture and science.

And so we approached Dr. John Smith, professor of Old Testament studies at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, to undertake an academic review of Holtvlüwer’s Foundations: Sermons on Genesis 1-3. Dr. Smith received a Ph.D. in Septuagint Studies from the University of Toronto in 2005 after writing a dissertation on the Greek translation of the book of Psalms. He served as minister of the Word in Albany, Western Australia, for five years, until last year when he moved back to Canada with his wife Darlene and their three sons and two daughters. Dr. Smith retains his ministerial status with Providence Canadian Reformed Church in Hamilton, Ontario.

We are grateful for Dr. Smith’s engagement and careful review, which you can find in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is given here.

John Piper’s Think: A Review

2011-06-06T08:56:00.000-07:00

John Piper, Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God (Crossway, 2010). ISBN-13: 978-1-4335-2071-6, 222 pages. Cloth $22, Paper $18. Reviewed by Frederika Oosterhoff.

“The chief end of man,” the Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us, “is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” A question that is often asked today concerns the relative role of the heart and of the mind in glorifying and enjoying God. Some Christians place much stress on the mind, on thinking and reasoning and logic. Concerned about attacks upon the Bible by unbelieving scientists and other secular trend-setters, they defend the faith by means of arguments. This approach, which is widely followed also in Reformed circles, falls within the category of apologetics (the reasoned defence of the faith) and worldview analysis.

The approach has biblical warrant. We are to love God with our mind (Matt. 22:37) and must be prepared to give the reasons for the hope we have (1 Pet. 3:15). When they are in discussion with unbelieving intellectuals, Christians should be able to debate with them on their ground. They owe this not only to the unbelievers themselves, but also to fellow-believers. In this tradition there is, however, the danger of intellectualism: of concentrating on the head and forgetting about the role of the heart. In view of this danger, other Christians downplay the role of thinking and instead stress the absolute pre-eminence of the affections, of feeling, doing, and experiencing — in short, of the heart. Although an important correction, this type of thinking runs the danger of anti-intellectualism.

Well-known evangelical author John Piper disagrees with these alternatives. In his new book Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God (2010), Piper rejects “either-or” approaches in the matter of head and heart, thinking and feeling, reason and faith. For him it is a matter of “both-and.” While convinced of the dangers of intellectualism, he just as strongly rejects anti-intellectualism, pointing out that the use of the mind is essential in the life of faith and discipleship. Rigorous thinking is “a necessary, God-ordained means of knowing God” and provides “the kindling for the fires of the heart.”Such thinking does not of course allow for neutrality and intellectual pride. The gospel demands God-centred, biblical, non-autonomous thinking, the sort of thinking that seeks reasons to treasure and desire God above all things.

The Christian mind

Piper is the pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis and has authored several books, including such bestsellers as Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (3^rd ed. 2003), and Don’t Waste Your Life (2003). A Calvinist evangelical and a staunch believer in biblical infallibility, he is widely read also in Reformed circles.

The book now under review has a foreword by historian Mark A. Noll, a long-time friend of Piper and a fellow-evangelical. Noll himself has written about the need for deep, rigorous Christian thinking, most famously so in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (1994). His concern there was with the weaknesses in evangelical thinking in the realms of “high culture,” such as philosophy, politics, economic theory, historical inquiry, linguistics, literary theory, the history of science, social theory, and the arts; in short, all the disciplines within the range of advanced, specialized, first-order modern scholarship. Quoting a Lebanese Christian scholar, Noll reminded his readers that “at the heart of the crisis in Western civilization lies the state of the mind and the spirit of the universities.” And therefore, “For the sake of greater effectiveness in witnessing to Jesus Christ Himself, as well as for their own sakes, the Evangelicals cannot afford to keep on living on the periphery of responsible intellectual existence” (The Scandal, pp. 25f.). (Noll tells us in the Preface to Piper’s book that he is preparing a sequel to The Scandal. Entitled Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, it is scheduled to appear later this summer. We hope to review it in due time.)

Whether or not Piper agrees with Noll’s message, his book is not about Noll’s type of high-level academic thinking. Unlike Noll, he also does not deal with controversial topics such as the debate on Genesis 1. But neither does he express distrust of modern learning and modern science. His message is of a different nature and applies to all believers, to non-academics as much as to academics. Even though he stresses the importance of thinking, his intention is at no point, as he assures us in the Introduction, to prove the superiority of intellectuals and establish the need for degrees. Nor is it to encourage intellectual endeavours like apologetics or worldview analysis. His concern is with the need for Spirit-enabled thinking in understanding the gospel, and that need is shared by learned and unlearned alike. Such thinking is a means (and an indispensable one at that) which God has given to all those who seek Him, no matter the level of their education.

With respect to the head versus heart controversy, Piper admits that the mind, while indispensable, is the servant of the heart. We are to worship and love God and to enjoy him, and this is first of all a matter of the heart. But empty emotionalism threatens if such love and joy are not awakened by true knowledge of who God really is. Though factual knowledge does not save, it is indispensable. Believers must know and study the contents of the Bible, for how can they believe and love a God they don’t know; a God whose revelation they do not bother to read and try to understand?

Anti-intellectualism

Piper gives a good deal of attention to the prevailing anti-intellectualism in the history of American evangelicalism. He quotes the remark by the early twentieth-century evangelist Billy Sunday (who expressed the feelings, he believes, of many evangelical Christians): “If I had a million dollars I’d give $999,999 to the church and $1 to education.” What was widely believed in Sunday’s time is still widely believed today. Postmodern relativism and pragmatism in fact underscore the message that knowledge and study and serious thinking have little or nothing to do with true faith.

In this connection Piper mentions some Bible texts that are often used as “pillars of anti-intellectualism.” Among them are Luke 10:21, where Jesus gives thanks that God has “hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children,” and 1 Corinthians 1:19,20, where Paul reminds his readers that God “will destroy the wisdom of the wise” and has “made foolish the wisdom of this world.” There are similar warnings about “knowledge” and “the wisdom of this world” elsewhere in the Bible — for example in 1 Corinthians 3:19, Colossians 2:8, and Romans 1:28.

Nevertheless, as Piper concludes, the overwhelming message of the Bible is that knowing the truth is crucial. This demands a diligent use of the mind, always with the realization that proper understanding is God’s gift. After all, Satan also believes the facts of the Bible and trembles. The use of the mind is necessary and indispensable, but it is not decisive. Decisive is the work of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating power. That alone gives certainty. Piper reminds us at the same time that the “wise and learned” of Luke 10 are not necessarily the educated, but the self-reliant and proud. And pride is no respecter of persons; the uneducated are not immune to it. And conversely, highly educated Christians can be found among the “little children” — namely among those who know that they have nothing to contribute to their salvation and are utterly dependent on the cross.

Book Review – Hawking’s The Grand Design

2011-05-26T08:52:00.000-07:00

“Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time remains a top seller after 22 years, paralleling his surprising longevity with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This new book, written with Mlodinow (also a theoretical physicist and trade-book author), despite its grand claim says little new, except for providing a surface-level update on the speculative M-theory as well as joining the fashionable ‘Ditchkinses’ in providing naïve jabs at religion….

“Hawking & Mlodinow approach deep spiritual, metaphysical, ontological, and existential questions, but instead of seriously engaging them, they apply superficial physical-reductionistic answers. This is not surprising, given Hawking’s habit of ridiculing religion as outmoded myth, but it is sad nevertheless; I had hoped that he and Mlodinow would have learned from both atheist and Christian critiques of Dawkins and Hitchens. Apparently there remains a significant market for sloppy dismissal of anything to do with faith….

“Hawking and Mlodinow display extreme philosophical and theological naïveté, beginning with their announcement that ‘philosophy is dead’….

“The goal of the book was to answer ‘the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything,’ which they state as: ‘Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why this particular set of laws and not some other?’ (p. 10). These are good questions, but scientists and the general public, Christian or otherwise, will not receive reliable answers in this failed attempt by Hawking and Mlodinow.”

The above are snippets of my review of The Grand Design, which has been published in the June 2011 issue of Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith; read the entire review here or here, it is also listed in our “Collected Papers”.

Book Review - Pen of Iron: American Prose and the King James Bible

2011-05-24T08:40:00.000-07:00

The influence of the King James Bible upon the English language and culture is immense. This year, a number of books have been produced to mark the 400^th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version. We have found Tim DeJong, a doctoral student of English, willing and able to review Robert Alter’s Pen of Iron: American Prose and the King James Bible, which originated as the 2008 Spencer Trask Lectures at Princeton University. Alter is currently a professor in Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California-Berkeley, where he has taught since 1967. He is the author of numerous books and articles and a recognized expert in ancient Hebrew. In 2007 he published an English translation of the Psalms.

DeJong, who previously reviewed Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind for Reformed Academic, introduces and critiques Alter’s study, which reflects on how the KJV’s distinctive prose and themes have influenced the work of some of America’s great writers, including Melville, Faulkner, and Hemingway. We invite you to engage with DeJong’s review, which is listed in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

Children of God: The Imago Dei in John Calvin and His Context – A Review

2011-04-20T10:06:00.000-07:00

Human beings, we read in Genesis 1, are created in God’s image and likeness. Throughout the centuries theologians have struggled with these terms, trying to ascertain their precise meaning. Some have concluded that they refer to the fact that humans, unlike other creatures, have the ability to reason and so to communicate with God. Others believe that they point to the human ability to establish relationships, and still others that they must be interpreted in a functional sense, referring to the fact that human beings were appointed as God’s vice-regents with the specific task of ruling the rest of creation.

Prominent among Reformed contributors to the discussion is the sixteenth-century reformer John Calvin, and it is his views that form the topic of the book now under discussion. The author, Dr. Jason Van Vliet, originally wrote it as a doctoral dissertation for the Theological University at Apeldoorn, The Netherlands (2009). A graduate of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary in Hamilton, ON (1996), he now serves at that seminary in the department of dogmatology. Van Vliet shows that Calvin dealt with the question of the divine image throughout his professional life and that his views developed over time. Calvin’s most important contribution, Van Vliet concludes, lay in his description of the image as referring to the relationship between a Father and his children (as also reflected in the title).

Books by theologians are usually reviewed by theologians. Since Van Vliet’s topic falls within the category of historical theology, however, it was also possible to assign the work of reviewing it to a historian. That is what we did when we asked Richard Oosterhoff to take up the challenge. As the review shows, we made the proper choice. Not only historians, but also theologians (as well as the interested lay person) will appreciate both the contextual framework our reviewer has provided and his informative, extensive, and balanced description and analysis of Van Vliet’s book.

Richard Oosterhoff is a native of southern Ontario and received his B.Sc., with double majors in Biology and Religion and Theology, from Redeemer University College (2005). Now a Ph.D. candidate in the Program in History & Philosophy of Science at the University of Notre Dame, he is writing a dissertation on how a group of Renaissance professors at the University of Paris, some of whom became French reformers, joined their passion for Christ and their piety with deep love of the liberal arts, especially the mathematical arts of the quadrivium. (If you wonder what the quadrivium is, just ask him – but be prepared to endure enthusiasm!) Richard was pleased to spend much of this winter researching in rare book libraries in Paris and southern California, but now that spring has brought daffodils to the Midwest he is very happy to be back in South Bend, Indiana, where he can again enjoy the warm fellowship of Michiana Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA), which he, his wife Elora, and their two little girls had greatly missed during their travels.

The review is found in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

The Passionate Intellect – A Book Review

2011-04-16T12:55:00.000-07:00

In The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind, Alister McGrath positions the themes of religion and science as fields that should be integral, not separate. He believes that personal faith adds greatly to the conversations within and among vocations. In this collection of essays, flowing from his past teaching and presentations, McGrath seeks to inform the reader that faith is both a source of life and a matter of intellectual rigour, while at the same time he positions arguments around the new atheism, its agenda, and the opportunity it possibly provides for serious academic debate.

The reviewer of this book is Christina Belcher, Associate Professor of Education at Redeemer University College, who together with her husband Paul attends Stone Ridge Bible Chapel in Hamilton, ON. Former work in faculties of education at Trinity Western University, BC and in Australia and New Zealand, informs her writing and practice. With publications in the area of children’s literature, worldview, and higher education, she seeks in her work to unify a past, present and future view of historical reference prior to proposing hope and reconciliation in matters of an educational nature. As a co-author, she believes that interdisciplinary peer collaboration is helpful in any field in that it prevents what she refers to as a tunnel vision leading to hardening of the categories in our attempts to see worldview perspectives as significant to all of life. She therefore has written articles with peers from other disciplines, and considers learning to be one of the highlights of life.

In the present review, then, McGrath’s book is seen through the lens of an educational practitioner who desires to stimulate greater conversation both within specific disciplines and among different disciplines. We thank Prof. Belcher for her review, posted in our “Collected Papers” (direct link here), and welcome your engagement.

Character Education: Theory and Practice

2011-04-11T10:44:00.000-07:00

As stated in my review of N.T. Wright’s book on character education which was posted on this blog on 29 November 2010, that same topic was also dealt with at last year’s International Conference for Reformed Education, held in Lunteren, the Netherlands. The subject was introduced by Dr. Pieter Vos, who chairs the lectorate Moral Education at the Reformed University of Applied Sciences (the Gereformeerde Hogeschool) in Zwolle and is also a lecturer in Ethics at the Protestant Theological University in Kampen.

Dr. Vos has kindly allowed us to post a slightly adapted version of his lecture, which gives information on the theory and history of character education. For those who are interested also in the practical application of virtue education and in its methodology: Last year two books were published in the Netherlands dealing with these aspects. For details see the conclusion of Dr. Vos’s lecture under our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

“Calvin as Journalist” by Warren Smith (Ch. 12)

2011-03-18T09:00:00.000-07:00

This review, written by Glenda Mathes, completes our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

Calvin and Culture’s editors Hall and Padgett may have placed “Calvin as Journalist” in its penultimate position because the connection initially seems almost surreal. Author Warren Cole Smith acknowledges the obscurity of the correlation, particularly compared to Calvin’s influence on church polity:

“There is a straight and heavy line that connects Calvin to, for example, the forms of church governance and discipline used by many denominations today. But the line between Calvin and modern journalism is not quite so firmly etched. It requires the connecting of dots, both historically and intellectually” (p. 277).

Few people are more qualified than Smith to connect the dots between Calvin and journalism; he is the associate publisher of WORLD Magazine with over 20 years of professional experience, including a stint as the publisher and editor of the Evangelical Press News Service, and the author of the intriguingly titled A Lover’s Quarrel with the Evangelical Church (Authentic, 2009).

Before Smith pinpoints ideas of John Calvin and links them to aspects of modern journalism, he relates a brief history of journalism that frequently cites Marvin Olasky, Rodney Stark, and others. Although the advent of the printing press is widely recognized as the technological impetus that accelerated journalism’s growth as well as the Reformation’s momentum, Smith emphasizes the courage of printers in addition to the convenience of the printing press. While famous Reformers could (and often did) flee for their lives, Reformed printers frequently risked their lives and livelihood, especially when Protestant areas came under Roman Catholic control.

I’ve often thought that anyone who characterizes Calvin as heartless or obtuse has never read his Institutes of the Christian Religion. As Smith details how Calvin became a man of letters, he points out that the Institutes especially “show us a writer who was journalistic in style and argumentation” and “drew praise, even in Calvin’s day, for a lively and readable style” (p. 282). These comments established Smith as a reliable narrator in my mind.

Calvin “built the foundation for modern journalism,” according to Smith, by devoting his life not only to “speaking truth to power but also to giving language and opportunity to millions of others who could and did speak truth to power” (pp. 283 & 284). Smith notes that this “notion of the reporter as prophet, as one who speaks truth to power” is “deeply rooted in the ethos of modern journalism” (p. 283) and remains true today.

Smith shows how the Reformation concept of God’s sovereignty unleashed the natural inquisitiveness of humankind and what he calls the “peculiar curiosity” of the journalist (p. 285). That natural and legitimate curiosity about all aspects of creation has degenerated in modern times to an often prurient interest that creates tension “between man’s God-given curiosity about the world and man’s tendency to overreach — to ‘become as God’ ” (pp. 286 & 287). Smith contrasts modern journalistic excess with the early “propriety” of The New York Times, established in 1851 by a “Bible-believing Presbyterian” (p. 288).

In his section on “The Rise of the Fourth Estate” (journalism), Smith draws parallels between Calvin’s influence on governing institutions (the Consistory, in particular) and the establishment of an American government with its provision for a free press. As Calvin became more powerful, his Consistory became “increasingly intrusive” (p. 290). Recognizing the “will to power” in himself, Calvin developed the Presbyterian system of church governance, which “distributes power rather than centralizes it” (pp. 290 & 291). This system came to secular expression in the federal system of checks and balances with three branches of government.

Admitting that Calvin “certainly did not invent or practice journalism,” Smith quickly adds “while Calvin may not have been the first modern journalist, his ideas and the institutions that came into being as a result of his ideas made modern journalism possible” (p. 291). Smith concludes that Calvin expressed the biblical promise about the truth setting us free in the famous opening line of his Institutes: “Nearly the whole of sacred doctrine consists in these two parts: knowledge of God and of ourselves” (p. 292). Smith’s last dot pricks the parchment as well as journalism’s collective conscience: “The truly great journalism of the past five hundred years has passionately pursued knowledge of both God and man. The extent that journalism can recover these twin pursuits clearly put before us by Calvin is the extent to which journalism can be great again” (p. 292).

Some of the lines Smith draws between these dots are heavier than others (the line in “The Peculiar Curiosity of the Journalist” seems heaviest, while the line in “The Rise of the Fourth Estate” seems most faint); however, Smith smoothly transitions from each topic to the next and clearly delineates each connection.

Smith enables Reformed readers, who easily visualize the lines between Calvin and modern theology or church polity, to open their eyes wider and discern previously unconsidered connections. His conclusion reminds Reformed writers and all curious Christians of journalism’s noble past and calls us to work toward a righteous future.

As an older, non-traditional student, Glenda Mathes graduated from the University of Iowa in 2006 with a Bachelor of Liberal Studies degree. She has reported news for Christian Renewal since 2001 and has been the Managing or Contributing Editor for Mid-America Reformed Seminary’s newsletter, the Messenger, since 2003. She freelance writes and edits from her home near Pella, Iowa, where she and her husband, David, are members of Covenant Reformed Church (URCNA). She regularly blogs at Ascribelog.

“Medicine: In the Biblical Tradition of John Calvin with Modern Applications” by Franklin Payne (Ch. 11)

2011-03-15T14:20:00.000-07:00

This review, written by James Rusthoven, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

Author Franklin Payne is a retired associate professor of family medicine at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta, Georgia in the US. He has published several books on medical practice and ethics, including Biblical/Medical Ethics (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1985) and Biblical Healing for Modern Medicine: Choosing Life and Health or Disease and Death (Augusta, GA: Covenant Enterprises, 1993). In this chapter, Dr. Payne sets out to show that modern science and medicine are direct legacies of John Calvin, that the Calvinist theologians Cotton Mather and Abraham Kuyper made considerable contributions to medicine, and that the Decalogue has considerable application to modern medicine. His attempt to blend theological themes and the lives of these formative Reformed theologians and scholars with aspects of modern medical care is laudable but at times is difficult to follow while important intermediate worldview and philosophical connections are lacking.

As a Christian, he addresses several fundamental concerns about contemporary medical practice in the American context. Two key premises of his critique are 1) a person’s health is greatly dependent on his belief system and 2) health care in the US has become an idolatrous worship of the body. The former is expressed through the belief that health and healing must be prescribed within biblical virtues such as love, patience, and self-control. The latter is demonstrated through factors such as high medical care costs, concrete manifestations of materialism exemplified by abortion and euthanasia, and failure to identify and translate the knowledge of God into a normative understanding of medicine.

I empathize with Dr. Payne’s criticism of prominent Christian scholars who support the revival of a transcendent and covenantal character for medicine grounded in the pagan Hippocratic Oath (though I don’t condone his intimation of blasphemy). I also agree that patients need to be informed fully about their illness and available treatments. However, I disagree on several important points. He fails to reference quotations but, more importantly, major concepts and positions suffer from insufficient depth and clarity of presentation. For example, Dr. Payne alludes to a book by Mather as “mostly a book on medicine” due to its small number of chapters devoted to sin, spiritual healing, and mental illness. This and other examples suggest an inherent conceptual dualism of medicine and spirituality in the author’s analysis. Ironically, in some sections he seems to consciously deny this perspective, claiming that human beings are a psychosomatic entity (which he interestingly distinguishes from a psychosomatic unity associated with pagan philosophical influences!).

Dr. Payne’s overall analysis is more theological than worldview in scope. Focusing on works of Mather and Kuyper, he fails to acknowledge the work of more contemporary Kuyperian successors who further characterize the structures of the created order beyond the five faculties he attributes to Kuyper. This leads to some serious analytical pitfalls such as the implication that all psychologists and psychiatrists are ‘materialist professionals’. He neglects to acknowledge the work of Reformed Christian physicians (including at least one psychiatrist [1]) with distinctly Reformed approaches to medicine. One in particular explores normative structures and directions of medical practice in a systematic effort to avoid reductionistic traps inherent in the materialist culture that Payne tries to critique. [2] Dr. Payne also confounds the normative role of government in health care. From a neo-Calvinist perspective, government need not withdraw from health care (e.g., the high cost of US health care that he largely attributes to government spending can also be attributable to private health care costs) but should rather provide better oversight of just and equitable availability of health care in society.

The author’s frequent appeal to Scripture would be strengthened by applying available intermediate conceptual connections between Scriptural teaching and medical practice such as a biblical covenantal ethic [3] and a multi-aspectual analysis of medicine drawn directly from the Kuyperian tradition. These could give a greater richness to the necessary critique that he has begun and thus lay stronger foundations for a Reformed Christian model for medical practice.

Dr. James Rusthoven earned his MD degree from the University of Illinois and his MHSc degree from the University of Toronto. He is currently Professor of Oncology at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario and is completing a PhD in theology and bioethics from Trinity College, University of Bristol, UK. Dr. Rusthoven is an active member of the first Christian Reformed Church of Hamilton, Ontario.

Footnotes
1. G. Glas, “Persons and Their Lives: Reformational Philosophy of Man, Ethics, and Beyond”, Philosophia Reformata v. 71 (2006) pp. 31-57 (online here or here). Dr. Glas is a Christian psychiatrist in the Netherlands and professor of philosophy at the Free University of Amsterdam.
2. J. Jochemsen, “Normative Practices as an Intermediate between Theoretical Ethics and Morality”, Philosophia Reformata v. 71 (2006) pp. 96-112 (online here). Dr. Jochemsen is former director of the Lindeboom Institute, a Christian centre for biomedical ethics in the Reformed tradition in the Netherlands.
3. J. Rusthoven, “Understanding Medical Relationships through a Covenantal Ethical Perspective”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith v. 62 (2010) pp. 3-15 (available online).

“Calvin and Music” by Paul Jones (Ch. 10)

2011-03-11T08:59:00.000-08:00

This review, written by Theo Lodder, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

In chapter 10 of Calvin and Culture, Paul Jones, organist and music director at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, discusses Calvin from within the discipline of music. After briefly introducing Calvin’s worldview, which was characterized more by joy and less by austerity than is sometimes granted, Jones recounts Calvin’s colossal contribution to the retrieval of robust congregational singing, particularly psalm-singing. He traces in detail the development of the numerous psalters which Calvin published over the period of a quarter century, culminating in the Genevan Psalter of 1562. For the Canadian Reformed Churches, which claim the honour of publishing the first complete English version — the Anglo-Genevan Psalter — some 400 years later in 1972, this chapter provides crucial historical information about the formation of the Book of Praise which we use in our worship services and beyond from week to week. Jones also provides an intriguing survey of numerous historical contributors to music in the Reformed tradition in several lands as a further sampling of Calvin’s widespread impact.

In his discussion of Calvin’s famous “Preface to the Psalter” (1543), Jones remarks that Calvin, like Luther, “believe[d] that music can teach the Word of God as a concentrator of the text it carries.” His respect for the power of music, both for good and for ill, lay at the heart of Calvin’s caution about music and his misplaced fear of musical instruments in worship, according to Jones, a caution inherited from the patristic church. This respect for music’s power also motivated Calvin to engage the finest poets and musicians he could find to prepare a psalter.

Calvin’s choice of the ancient church modes for psalm-singing, Jones points out, was “intrinsically linked to Calvin’s program of restoring the face of the ancient church” and also reflected the influence of Renaissance musical values, such as “simplicity, a word-note relationship where music serves the text, clarity, intelligibility, and historical rootedness.” Thus, the Genevan Psalter was truly visionary and purposefully unlike the secular music of its day, aspects we should remember in our discussion about and use of this psalter in particular, and also in our thinking about and practice of liturgical music in general. The church needs to be the salt and light of the world also in her music and song.

Of particular interest to the Reformed musician, liturgist, and worshipper is the musical evaluation of the Genevan Psalter which Jones offers. According to him, the rhythms of the psalm tunes are the most captivating, characterized by “vitality and energy.” He also believes that “the breadth and quality of [its] melodies and metric forms [are] unmatched in any other metrical psalter.” These observations go a long way in explaining the growing interest in and use of the Genevan Psalter among many churches throughout the world. The Canadian Reformed Churches really do have something valuable in their psalter that is worth promoting and sharing with many others in the English-speaking world.

What about Calvin’s well-known objection to musical instruments in worship, including the organ? Jones points out two factors that one should remember when assessing Calvin’s position (and that of the Synod of Dort; Jones likely means the provincial and national synods of 1574 and 1578). The first factor, according to Jones, is Calvin’s stated dissent against how organs were used in the Roman services; the second factor is the reality that organs were concert instruments and not used for congregational singing in Roman churches either.

Jones also provides helpful guiding principles for Christian musicians drawn from Calvin’s theology and practice. Among these guiding principles are the centrality of the Word of God in the church musician’s labour and the importance of music in corporate worship. I fully agree with Jones when he claims that the church has a mandate, in line with the wise instruction and the good example of Calvin, to teach children psalms and hymns and to train young people musically. I also agree that church musicians, pastors, and other church leaders, such as seminary professors, should work closely together so that as church we may offer to God, through Jesus Christ, the jubilant music and song of which he is eternally worthy.

With an M.Div. from the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Theo Lodder, pastor of Cloverdale Canadian Reformed Church in Surrey, BC, is about to graduate with his Doctor of Ministry degree from Covenant Theological Seminary (PCA). His dissertation is entitled “Musical Instruments and Musicians in the Worship of the Canadian Reformed Churches.”

“John Calvin’s Impact on Business” by Richard Chewning (Ch. 9)

2011-03-08T20:02:00.000-08:00

This review, written by John Boersema, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

The author of this chapter, Richard Chewning, is emeritus professor of business at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. He is a major contributor to the development of the integration of faith and business, being co-author of Business Through the Eyes of Faith (HarperOne, 1990), and editor of the seminal four-volume series Christian in the Marketplace (NavPress, 1989).

Chewning begins his chapter by sketching the practice of business between the end of the Roman Empire and A.D. 1600. “The breakup of the Roman Empire was followed by…instability…city states, feudal holdings and the divided lands of kings.” Safety and security disappeared, trade became hazardous, and common currencies and the rule of law disappeared. Survival through self-sufficiency within manorial estates and scattered towns became the norm. Economics was concerned with subsistence. The Church was the great pillar of stability, with economics subsidiary to the real business of life — salvation. Economic motives were suspect and needed to be repressed. Profits were considered sinful and lending money at interest was illegal. While over time, many forces necessary for a free market system had already been at work before Calvin, Chewning (similar to Terrell in Ch. 4) argues that Calvin made especially significant contributions to the flowering of capitalism. He focuses on Calvin’s pronouncements on (1) the value of work, (2) the payment of interest, and (3) a positive understanding of profits. [1]

Although both Luther and Calvin, according to Chewning, popularized the notion that work is a calling from God, Luther did not include the activities of merchants, bankers, and other business types in the category of “work,” because he “hated commerce and capitalism.” Calvin, however, also applied this Scriptural calling to the latter groups. Calvin argued that we should simply “work hard” in order to glorify God. Chewning makes it clear, however, that Calvin would not have agreed with the extension made subsequently by some of his followers that the wealth thus created was proof of salvation — an early form the “prosperity theology.” In any case, the focus on ordinary hard work was a major step forward from medieval Roman Catholicism. [2]

Chewning also makes the point that Calvin, in contravention of church doctrine at the time, “birthed the idea that charging interest could carry with it a sense of moral legitimacy.” The payment of interest for the use of capital was as reasonable as the payment of rent for the use of land (as long as it did not exceed the amount dictated by natural justice and the golden rule). Chewning makes the interesting suggestion that Calvin’s message possibly succeeded while earlier efforts had failed because (1) the time was ripe, (2) his thinking was logical and reflected common sense, and (3) Calvin’s overall teachings created the movement of “Calvinism” which carried his teaching throughout Europe and the New World.

Chewning further notes that although “profit is to business what a healthy blood count is to the body,” until the time of Calvin profit was most often considered to be sinful — “neither necessary nor the Christian thing to do.” Calvin, however, taught that profits were the fruit of one’s labour — a person’s good work. His teachings were transforming, setting people free to work hard and reap the benefits that followed from it. Business people influenced by Calvin thus accepted wealth from diligence but also promoted the morality of thrift. Investing one’s savings for productive purposes became an “instrument of piety.” In this way, the old medieval “‘ideal’ of economic and social stability was replaced by the acceptance of economic growth and material improvement for everyone.” Chewning is, no doubt, correct in concluding that Calvin by “nurturing such basic values as work, wealth accumulation, thrift, investment, risk assumption, competition, and productivity…had a profound impact on the formulation and acceptance of a new worldview regarding commerce.”

Chewning concludes his chapter by recognizing that although Calvin’s economic thoughts still influence us today, they have frequently been perverted and misinterpreted. Hard work and its fruits (wealth) became the “self-assuring measure of one’s right standing with God. The work ethic has been transformed into “workaholism” with entrepreneurs, particularly, developing a faith in their own efforts — the worldview of the secular humanists. The heart and soul of Calvin’s teaching that works are “for the glory of God” has been lost. Concerning interest, Chewning makes some useful comments about current disclosure requirements. He further stresses that whereas in Calvin’s days the issue concerned the paying of interest for money borrowed for productive purposes, today’s society accepts the paying of interest by consumers “for the purpose of consuming tomorrow’s income today” — “clearly poor stewardship of one’s resources.” He further points out that Calvin’s idea of “profits meeting the needs of the poor” has been lost in today’s marketplace.

Terrell and Chewning tend to agree on the basic contribution that Calvin has made to the field of economics and business. They do so, however, in quite different ways. Both are strongly recommended.

John Boersema, a professor emeritus at Redeemer University College, holds a Ph.D. in Business and Applied Economics from the University of Pennsylvania and is a member of the Ancaster Canadian Reformed Church.

Footnotes
1. It is not surprising that these three points have similarities to those of Terrell. After all, economics is the theoretical underpinning of business.
2. In this, Chewning agrees with Terrell although Chewning does not explicitly deal with the Weber thesis.

“Calvin and Science” by Don Petcher (Ch. 8)

2011-03-04T15:14:00.000-08:00

This review, written by Gerrit Bos, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

Don Petcher, professor of physics at Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, Georgia) and co-author with Tim Morris of Science & Grace: God’s Reign in the Natural Sciences (Crossway, 2006), makes the case that science is a wonderful enterprise for a scientist in the Calvinist tradition. Calvin’s worldview gives a high or special place to the Scriptures, but leaves much freedom for science. Petcher rejects the warfare hypothesis (science and religion are at war) and advocates a return to Calvin, setting the stage for a common sense approach to and a rich understanding of science. Petcher rightly points out the centrality in Calvin’s theology of God’s sovereignty over all creation. He figures God’s providence fits within His sovereignty and within that yet again, God’s “radical sustenance,” which includes all creation, not just supernatural events. This helps us to understand how to view laws of nature. Petcher then works with writings of Davis A. Young, William J. Bouwsma, R. Hooykaas, James Orr and others to describe Calvin’s principle of accommodation. God accommodates limited human understanding by using everyday understandable language. E.g. Calvin explains that Moses referred to ‘greater’ and ‘lesser lights’ on the basis of their appearance to us, and does not address the fact that Saturn is larger than the moon. Petcher and the other authors consider the accommodation principle a doctrine, and build approvingly on it to include the Big Bang theory, long age of the earth and non-literal six days of creation. After mentioning some recent scientific discoveries, and a short critique of the Intelligent Design movement, as well as Young Earth Creationism, Petcher concludes by saying: “Thank God for the wonderful grace of the scientific enterprise.”

This chapter presents quite a few things which can be readily agreed to such as Calvin’s emphasis on God’s sovereignty, his worldview which sets the stage for a rich understanding of science, and God’s occasional accommodation of our limited understanding by using everyday language. But as Petcher extends the occasional accommodation into a principle, and then a doctrine, it seems to acquire an overriding role in his understanding. Instead of God accommodating our limited understanding, the doctrine increasingly takes on a meaning of God’s Word accommodating changing scientific understanding. Thus Petcher’s final position of a long-age of the earth contradicts Calvin’s explicit writing that the earth is no more than 6000 years old (e.g. Institutes 1.14.1). And while Calvin nowhere explicitly denies the possibility of extended-length creation days, it is beyond doubt that he understood the creation days to be normal days. I base this conclusion on his discussions of whether the first day began with evening or morning (Commentary on Gen. 1:5), creation accomplished in six days, not in one moment (e.g. Institutes 1.14.2), God creating the world in six days, resting on the seventh, manifests His works and creates a model for us to imitate (Commentary on Fourth commandment – Ex. 20:8) and even his discussion on whether the seventh month might have been the first month, the month of creation (Commentary on Fourth commandment – Lev. 23:24). Calvin likewise criticizes those who “reconcile the doctrine of Scriptures with the dogmas of philosophy” to “avoid teaching anything which the majority of mankind might deem absurd.” (Institutes 2.2.4) These contradictions seem irreconcilable.

What to do with these things as a reformed academic? Well, take heart; science is indeed a wonderful vocation, and a Calvinist, reformed world-view allows it to flourish, rather than be still-born as in many other world-views. God’s creation has infinite areas to research, use, steward, and understand. Follow these with all your hearth, thought, and mind. Avoid thinking more highly of yourself than you ought, and eschew human precepts which would lead to pride. Live the Sola Scriptura of the Reformation, and use scriptural understanding to determine the object of your scientific enterprise, as well as the methods employed in it. Rejoice and give thanks for it, but continue to see its place subordinate to God’s and Scripture’s authority. Read literature like what is reviewed here with discernment; retain that which is good, discard that which is not.

Gerrit Bos graduated from the University of Guelph with a BSc in Engineering in 1987, and is currently the Information Technology Security Officer there, member of Emmanuel CanRC in Guelph, and chairman of the board of Covenant Canadian Reformed Teachers College.

“Calvin, Politics, and Political Science” by Paul Marshall (Ch. 7)

2011-03-01T08:46:00.000-08:00

This review, written by Michael Wagner, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

Paul Marshall is an internationally-recognized expert on issues related to religious freedom and persecution. Currently a fellow of the Hudson Institute (an American think tank), he is the author of over 20 books on religion and politics and is highly respected in the field.

The main burden of his article is to disprove the modern notion that John Calvin made no distinct contribution to political thought. Quoting from Calvin himself as well as other scholars, Marshall convincingly demonstrates that “Calvin’s key contributions to the study of politics come not from the detailed particulars of legal theory but from the way he embedded politics in a Christian, particularly Protestant, worldview or cosmology.”

Calvin’s emphasis that each person could relate directly to God through Jesus Christ had anti-hierarchical and egalitarian implications for politics and society. No longer was the Church seen as the “highest body” of society and no longer were ecclesiastical vocations seen as more spiritual than other tasks. Furthermore, the Church was organizationally separate from the state.

Calvin favoured a form of government where citizens shared in political power to a certain degree, an “aristocracy tempered by democracy.” Monarchy (the dominant form of government at his time) could degenerate too easily into tyranny. Calvin’s view included “a system of checks and balances,” an idea that would later significantly influence American constitutionalism. In sum, his thought “led to a stress on moving politics from being simply an elite occupation to one that is participatory.”

Marshall also discusses the thought of Johannes Althusius (1563-1638), a philosopher who developed some of the implications of Calvin’s political views. Althusius played a key role in the creation of federalism (a system where political power is divided between a national authority and constituent regional authorities). He also may have coined the term “political science.”

The material presented by Marshall is helpful for demonstrating Calvin’s importance to political science and Western societies. It’s a worthy contribution to a volume on Calvin’s impact on the modern world. Personally, I would like to have seen greater attention placed on aspects of Calvin’s thought that confront powerful trends in the Western nations such as the marginalization of Christianity and the widespread acceptance of abortion and promiscuous sexuality of various kinds. As he argues in the Institutes, political rulers are not to be neutral with regard to religion but “should labor to protect and assert the honor of Him whose representatives they are, and by whose grace they govern.”

In two places Marshall quotes a certain passage from the Institutes showing that Calvin did not believe the judicial law of the Old Testament should be carried over into modern societies. Of course, this is true. Calvin did not believe that the judicial law could be transplanted from the Jewish people of the Old Testament to modern nations. In his view, each nation must have the latitude to make laws and punishments that suit its particular situation.

However, he did expect those laws to reflect God’s moral law. As he puts it, “together with one voice, they pronounce punishment against those crimes which God’s eternal law has condemned.” Calvin calls the moral law “the true and eternal rule of righteousness, prescribed for men of all nations and times, who wish to conform their lives to God’s will.” The Ten Commandments are normative for all mankind and all nations.

That is not a message that people will want to hear today. But is Calvin wrong? Is God’s moral law an enduring standard for political ethics? Or need we look to another source? It’s a stark choice, and an answer reflecting historic Reformed thought will not be popular even in some Christian circles. Clearly, faithfulness to God requires submission to His moral law.

In Calvin’s view the chief purpose of man is to glorify the one true God, even in political matters. And it is this God, as he puts it, “to whose will the desires of all kings ought to be subject, to whose decrees all their commands ought to yield, to whose majesty their scepters ought to be submitted.”

Michael Wagner holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Alberta. He is an independent researcher and writer, the author of Standing on Guard for Thee: The Past, Present and Future of Canada’s Christian Right (Freedom Press, 2007), and is a member of the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton.

“Calvin’s Legacy in Philosophy” by William Davis (Ch. 6)

2011-02-24T22:27:00.000-08:00

This review, written by Bill DeJong, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

One of the rich ironies of history is that the theology of John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Genevan reformer, has attained a level of recognition, if not prominence, within the guild of contemporary North-American Christian philosophers. What is so staggering about this phenomenon is that in his writings Calvin often spoke critically of the enterprise of philosophy and never, throughout the entirety of his life, developed anything that approaches a philosophical system. In this chapter William C. Davis, professor of philosophy at Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Georgia, shows us with acumen and clarity the surprising legacy that Calvin has in the realm of philosophy, especially in the areas of epistemology and metaphysics.

In his assertions about human knowledge of God and human self-knowledge, Calvin “opens a new chapter in Western epistemology” (117). The first hallmark of this new chapter is the place Scripture should occupy in the acquisition of knowledge. That the Word of God is the authority by which all knowledge claims are to be judged is attested, Calvin alleged, by the Word of God itself. Though philosophers sometimes balk at the circularity of the argument, Davis rightly regards it as “philosophically tight” (119). No other authority could authorize the Word of God but God himself. Calvin’s view of Scripture as self-authenticating has been acknowledged and embraced not only by Cornelius Van Til and John Frame in their constructions of a presuppositional apologetic, but also by Alvin Plantinga is his philosophizing about the warrant for belief.

The second hallmark is the inevitability of human belief in God or what Calvin called the sensus divinitatus. Though some theologians and philosophers insist that knowledge of God’s existence is attainable only through demonstration and proof (e.g., Charles Hodge, R.C. Sproul), others with more indebtedness to Calvin allege that demonstrative proof is unnecessary to justify belief in God. Among the latter, Alvin Plantinga is especially prominent for his position that the sensus divinitatus is analogous to the otherwise reliable faculties of sight and hearing. Also in line with Calvin, Plantinga posits that faith is a God-given module by which certain truths beyond the knowledge of God’s existence can be apprehended and believed.

The third hallmark is the noetic effects of the fall whereby human powers are now not only inept, but distorted and liable to lead us astray. In line with Calvin, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd argued that sin’s influence on our noetic equipment is most disruptive in religious affairs and therefore especially in academic disciplines such as economics and ethics where religious dispositions are at the forefront, and less so in, for example, math and physics, which tend not to be as influenced by religious convictions.

In the area of metaphysics, John Calvin’s theology is far less appreciated, especially in view of the widening embrace of open theism. Few tolerate Calvin’s compatibilist position of affirming both meticulous providence and morally responsible human behaviour. Davis thoughtfully interacts with the most commonly raised problems with Calvin’s compatibilism — namely, how humans can be responsible for acts decreed by God and why meticulous providence is not fatalism. These problems are addressed wisely and biblically by Davis who encourages, as Calvin did, a humble embrace of the teachings of God’s Word, especially in areas where human comprehension is transcended.

The only shortcoming in this chapter is Davis’s neglect to direct readers to debates regarding some of the issues he raises. Whether Plantinga has correctly understood Calvin on the sensus divinitatus, for example, is disputed by, inter alia, James K.A. Smith in Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). The extent to which Calvin was a compatibilist (an anachronistic term) is debated in Willem J. van Asselt, ed., Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010).

This demurral notwithstanding, Davis’s chapter on Calvin’s legacy in philosophy is erudite and judicious and a wonderful sample of Christian scholarship. Those in the Reformed tradition will be reaffirmed in their views about the central place of Scripture in the enterprise of philosophy, about the role of faith in apprehending truth, and about the devastating influences of the fall on human reasoning. What is especially exciting is that each of these affirmations, some more than others, is more palatable to postmoderns than they ever were to moderns. Lastly, Davis provides Reformed believers some philosophical and biblical ammunition to defend classic theism in view of the surging popularity of open theism.

With an M.Div. from Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Bill DeJong is pastor of Cornerstone Canadian Reformed Church in Hamilton, ON and a Ph.D. student in Christian theology at McMaster Divinity College.

“Calvinism and Literature” by Leland Ryken (Ch. 5)

2011-02-22T07:09:00.000-08:00

This review, written by Ben Faber, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

“Calvinism and Literature” is written by Leland Ryken, Clyde S. Kilby Professor of English at Wheaton College. Ryken is justly appreciated for his work on John Milton and on the Bible as literature, and for his involvement with the English Standard Version. Ryken’s contribution to the ESV led to the publication of his The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation (Crossway, 2002), which argues that “only an essentially literal translation of the Bible can achieve sufficiently high standards of literary criteria and fidelity to the original text” (10). Aesthetic criteria and faithfulness to Scripture are at the heart of Ryken’s earlier book, The Liberated Imagination: Thinking Christianly about the Arts (Shaw, 1989), which first presents the Reformed doctrinal framework that is summarized in this chapter.

Ryken begins by noting that the absence of a “Calvinistic school” of literary theory is not attributable to the lack of suggestive material in Calvin’s theology. The resources in Calvin’s theology need to be converted, not only into a world view, but into workable concepts for literary theory and critical practice. Ryken then proceeds to construct a Reformed approach to literature from Calvin’s theology: the knowledge of God and of ourselves is the basis of Calvin’s view of culture, from which Ryken extrapolates an aesthetic theory that is applicable to literature.

The doctrines that Ryken identifies as crucial to a Calvinist approach to literature are the cultural mandate; the nature of vocation; the image of God; the common experience of God’s grace; the beauty of God and his creation; the symbolic representation of truth; and the divine standard of evaluation. These doctrines are relevant to literature only by inference and deduction. For instance, God commands humans to be culturally active; the making and receiving of literature is cultural activity; therefore, participation in literature is a cultural imperative. The doctrine of vocation is another example of such logic: God dignifies human work as “calling”; creative writing is work; therefore, the vocation of literature is approved by God. Ryken cites Calvin’s commentary on Exodus 31, regarding Bezalel’s work on the temple, as biblical evidence of art as vocation. This is typical of Ryken’s method throughout the chapter: he describes Calvin’s doctrines in terms of principles for cultural engagement and then relates these to literature. In so doing, Ryken is in line with other Calvinistic writers on culture, such as Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer, Calvin Seerveld, Henry Van Til, and Andy Crouch, as well as Henry Zylstra and Clarence Walhout on literature.

If the reader is looking for a concise apology for art in Calvin’s theology, this chapter hits the nail on the head. However, if one is looking for insight from Calvin on issues in literary theory more specifically, or for a biblical response to contemporary practices, then this is not the place. First, Ryken can only gesture toward Calvin’s doctrines of the incarnation and the sacraments in dealing with the “incarnational” or “sacramental” dimension of literary representation; more needs to be worked out from Calvin (and Augustine) to be fully descriptive of a Reformed approach to literature. Second, Ryken is writing a justification of literature for the Christian community, rather than a polemic against secular theories of interpretation. This chapter, then, should be read as laying the foundation for a more comprehensive exploration of Calvin’s theology as it relates to language and literature, framed in the context of contemporary literature, theory and criticism. That is a project far more ambitious and specialized than a short chapter in a volume commemorating Calvin’s contribution to the arts and learning can achieve.

Ben Faber holds a D.Phil. in English literature from Oxford University. He is assistant professor of English at Redeemer University College, and is a member of Cornerstone Canadian Reformed Church in Hamilton, Ontario.

“Calvin’s Contributions to Economic Theory and Policy” by Timothy Terrell (Ch. 4)

2011-02-18T19:45:00.000-08:00

This review, written by John Boersema, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

The author of this chapter, Timothy D. Terrell, is associate professor of economics at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

In introducing this chapter, Terrell argues that it would be difficult to envision the development of Western market-oriented civilization without Calvin and his followers. Recognizing that while Calvin “certainly retained some errors of his time, his work improved economic theory and policy and led to enduring moral defenses of liberty.” Terrell, obviously a free-market enthusiast, argues that Calvin’s work enhanced the case for economic freedom in three main ways, namely by (1) his defense of the occupations of merchants and industrialists (as part of his general view of occupation as “calling”), (2) his stance on interest and usury, and (3) his recognition of limits on the civil magistrates.

Terrell begins the exposition of his first point by drawing on the Weber thesis that “Protestantism led to capitalism by elevating ascetic stewardship to a virtue for all Christians in their callings, not just monks.” Calvin’s idea of a calling in all lines of work led Protestants to be more focused on the practical aspects of this world than was the case in other religions. While recognizing exceptions, he mentions the relative economic success of nations with Calvinistic backgrounds (e.g. Britain and its colonies) as opposed to that of Catholic Spain and Portugal (and their Central and South American colonies). Terrell rightly deals with some critics of Weber; he cautiously concludes that “Calvinism may have encouraged the accumulation of capital” (an essential element for modern economics) since it praises diligent, purposeful labour while de-emphasizing consumption. Accumulation of capital, Terrell argues, generated a group of capital owners who had an interest in protecting property rights over against thieves and the state, thus emphasizing individual rights (which Calvin explicitly supported) instead of a coercive state. Terrell further cites with approbation authors who attribute economic growth to the Protestant/Calvinist form of worship with fewer resources devoted to churches and less productive work lost through church-sanctioned holidays. In fact, the removal of the all-encompassing authority of the Roman Catholic Church created room for more experimentation and initiative.

Terrell explains that although Calvin did criticize the activities of businessmen, he, unlike others of his time, e.g., Luther, did accept merchant activity as a vocation. He affirmed the exchange of money and goods; money was an institution God had provided for the good of humanity. Calvin’s Geneva showed a remarkable increase in the numbers of merchants. While Calvin believed that wealth must be used to benefit the poor, this was to remain a voluntary act. Nevertheless, Calvin saw ample scope for governments to intervene in the economy by regulation – even of prices. In fact, Terrell notes there is much in Calvin’s work to provide ammunition for the Christian Left and interventionism. Terrell, however, attributes this to Calvin’s continuing immersion in the milieu of sixteenth-century Christian social thought — “the substantial burden of remaining error in Calvin.”

While Terrell recognizes that Calvin was not the first to attack the medieval church’s usury prohibitions, he supports the view of others that Calvin’s criticism of this “unbiblical and socially destructive” ban contributed to a “lasting advance in economic thought.” Calvin, according to Terrell, appealed to people’s conscience, asserting that the government could not restrict the terms of a lending agreement. He further contradicted the argument of the time that money as such was “sterile” but that use of money would allow the borrower the ability to buy and sell at a profit. Calvin recognized that the interest prohibition in Mosaic law was not applicable today except that interest should not be charged to the poor. Terrell does point out some lingering inconsistencies in Calvin’s view, e.g. his objection to professional money lenders.

In his final point, Terrell argues that Calvin’s belief in a limited role of the civil magistrate “may have been one his most important and lasting contributions.” Calvin (though somewhat inconsistently) recognized some of the dangers inherent in unlimited government power, which Terrell sees as “providing the groundwork for Western society’s institutional bulwark against central planning.”

Overall, Terrell has made an important contribution by showing that Calvin’s work has much wider implications than his theology alone, particularly since these contributions are not frequently recognized by students of economics. His chapter should encourage others to study the area further. In one sense, the chapter is limited. Rather than “contributions to economic theory and policy,” the focus appears to be on the implication of the work of Calvin, his followers and his critics to the development of the free market. Terrell’s own free market position is quite evident in this treatment. Given the nature of the book, it is not surprising that a large section is based primarily on secondary sources; it would have been more helpful to see more references to Calvin’s own work, but Calvin’s language makes that difficult. In any case, the chapter provides important food for thought.

John Boersema, a professor emeritus at Redeemer University College, holds a Ph.D. in Business and Applied Economics from the University of Pennsylvania and is a member of the Ancaster Canadian Reformed Church. He is the author of Political-Economic Activity to the Honour of God (Premier, 1999).

“The Arts and the Reformed Tradition” by William Edgar (Ch. 3)

2011-02-15T21:17:00.000-08:00

This review, written by Harold Sikkema, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

As do so many who discuss Calvin and the arts, William Edgar, Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, begins tentatively. “The Arts and the Reformed Tradition” is uniquely titled among the chapters in Calvin and Culture in that it lacks Calvin’s name, almost as if to distance him from the arts. Edgar reminds us of Calvin’s qualification of painting as “a tedium of idleness,” and speaks of Calvin’s reputation in the arts as one requiring “rehabilitation efforts.” As an artist, I am admittedly sceptical about these efforts, but as a Christian, I appreciate their redemptive spirit as well as Edgar’s work (his Honours B.A. in Music from Harvard serves him well here) in highlighting the Reformer’s more nuanced aesthetic moments.

We find in Edgar’s writing an effort to balance modern and postmodern historiographies. He appreciates the worldview framework used by Kuyper, Rookmaker, Schaeffer, and others: that culture emanates from worldview. He also suggests correctives to this framework in that “the search for an ethos…that characterizes a given era can lead to oversimplifications.” Two approaches in hand, Edgar proceeds practically, looking at Calvin’s views on both religious and secular arts, and at the concrete aesthetic implications of a Calvinist worldview.

Calvin’s violence against “superstitions of Popery” is spun neatly into context, such that iconoclastic precedents and Swiss politics — but especially a robust theological basis — serve, for Edgar, to defend his iconoclasm. It was never pure vandalism, he says, but intended as reform, publicly measuring local preparedness for Word-based worship. The “robust theology” is partly Augustinian, in that images supposedly “remove fear and add error,” but Calvin connects image-prohibition also to God’s glory, and to Christ, whose fulfillment of Old Testament figures instituted “simpler” worship, with only two representations: Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Calvin’s musical minimalism was also Word-based, with instruments belonging to the “spiritually immature” Old Testament, and the Psalms alone, as “prayers given by God himself,” maintaining the gravity and majesty of singing in worship.

Calvin’s opposition to images, Edgar rightly maintains, was not all-encompassing: he listed “the useful arts” among God’s gifts, seeking the “pure and legitimate use” of painting and sculpture. Together with Christopher Richard Joby, Edgar sees in Calvin’s restrictions a counterbalancing call for imagination, as in the metricized Psalmody. Illustrated Bibles, anti-Catholic cartoons, Protestant engravings, stained glass, and decorated communion cups all demonstrate for him “a deep respect for poetry and visual interpretation” among Calvinists. He also notes that Calvin’s theology resulted in more relational worship spaces: God meets us through his Word, as is symbolized by the centrality of the pulpit.

Rembrandt’s The Return of the Prodigal Son

In terms of Calvinist influences on the broader arts, Edgar compares several perspectives. Christian Tumpel sees Dutch painting as a fundamentally Protestant contribution, because of its “biblical histories rendered…in a psychological or applicatory way.” Hans Rookmaker highlights Rembrandt’s unique successes here. Dutch landscape art also connects to a Calvinist creation theology: for Maarten de Klijn as it flows from an understanding of nature as God’s “second book,” and for Boudewijn Bakker as a “song of praise to God the Creator.” For the sake of balance, Edgar reminds us that Reindert L. Falkenburg sees Dutch landscape art not as a product of Calvinism so much as of Enlightenment secularism.

Edgar finishes with a call to ongoing work: to further compare Protestant and Catholic sensibilities, and to study “cultural appropriations.” He joyfully notes that Calvinists are increasingly asking how to engage with the visual arts (rather than “whether” to engage them), and leaves artists with the challenge to articulate our misery but also our hope in the Lord.

Makoto Fujimura’s Charis Seat
from his Countenance collection.

I’m deeply grateful for the ground Edgar covers with such balance in this chapter. I found most enlightening what he gathered from Kuyper: that the Reformation, in spite of its iconoclasm, actually set art free to find its own way. I did find myself wondering why he so emphasised the Netherlands. Japan has at least as much to offer today in Makoto Fujimura, an artist (and elder in the PCA) who articulates precisely that sort of misery and hope for which Edgar asks. He does so through the visual languages of abstract expressionism, and Japanese Nihonga painting, two disciplines which do not neatly fit into Calvin’s scheme of images as either “historical” or “pictorial,” but through which he nevertheless seeks, in line with Calvin, to glorify God. His collaboration with Crossway to produce a set of Illuminated Gospels, while standing fully in the tradition of Protestant creativity, also brings to the table the lessons that art history would have us learn, through common grace.

Edgar’s final encouragement connects for me with what Andy Crouch reminds us of in Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling (IVP Books, 2008): that it’s not enough to critique, to copy, or to consume culture; the Christian calling, “be fruitful and multiply,” has always included responsibility for cultural creativity. And although this aesthetic imperative has indeed found expression in Calvin, it must continue to flourish in new ways among those called to be his successors.

Harold Sikkema holds a B.A. in Art and Multimedia from McMaster University, and practises visual art in Hamilton, Ontario, where he attends Providence Canadian Reformed Church.

“Law, Authority, and Liberty in Early Calvinism” by John Witte Jr. (Ch. 2)

2011-02-09T16:57:00.000-08:00

This review, written by Ian Moes, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

In this chapter, John Witte Jr., Director of the Center for the Study of the Law and Religion and Professor of Law at Emory University Law School, illustrates how Calvin influenced the legal arena both during his life and after. He focuses on Calvin’s main legal teachings and the unique models of law and liberty, authority and discipline, and church and state that Calvinists later developed from Calvin’s writings.

Witte highlights that central to Calvin’s teaching is a basic separation between church and state, but not a division between religion and politics. The church, Calvin argues, is responsible for governing itself without state interference. The state is responsible for making and enforcing laws that encompass the biblical principles of love for God and neighbour, but not for embracing biblical laws per se.

Witte explains how this worked practically for Calvin, who described three uses for the “moral law,” i.e., the moral commandments engraved on the conscience and summarized in the Decalogue:

Theological – to condemn all persons in their consciences and compel them to seek God’s liberating grace;
Civil – to restrain the sinfulness of nonbelievers; and
Educational – to teach believers the means and measures of sanctification.

From these three uses, Calvin argued that it was the church’s responsibility to teach the “spiritual norms” that are distinctly Christian, and the state’s responsibility to enforce the “civil norms” that are common to all persons.

In this regard, Calvin argued that the church was its own distinct legal entity and held “doctrinal power” to determine its own confessions, “legislative power” to ensure orderly administration, and “jurisdictional power” to enforce its own laws and church discipline. Only if the church’s spiritual jurisdiction failed should the state be called upon to enforce civil and criminal sanctions. In doing so, Witte notes that Calvin struck a unique balance between “law and liberty, structure and spirit, order and innovation, dogma and adiaphora.”

In reading Witte’s overview of Calvin’s contributions to the legal arena, one can see how Calvin’s teachings are still evident today in both internal church relations and church-state relations. For example, Canadian courts are notably reluctant to interfere with internal church matters. This is something Calvin would applaud as it recognizes the church’s “jurisdictional power.” Additionally, Canadian courts have historically refrained from passing judgment on the validity of doctrinal beliefs, but have instead focused on whether a particular belief is sincerely held in determining whether it merits protection. Again, this is something Calvin would applaud as it recognizes the church’s “doctrinal power.”

The challenge arises, however, that we are living in an increasingly pluralistic society. There is an increasing sentiment, both judicially and socially, that the freedom to hold religious beliefs is broader than the right to practice them publicly. The courts are increasingly called upon to “balance” religious rights with other rights and to adjudicate on whether there are legal limits on religious freedoms that are “justified in a free and democratic society.” In this way, religious beliefs are increasingly marginalized to be practiced within the four walls of the church building.

In this context, do Calvin’s teachings provide any guidance? I think they do. While Witte notes that Calvin assumed each local community would have a single faith wherein both the church and the state would cooperate in the governance of a godly polity, Calvin’s primary emphasis was that the state should not apply biblical laws per se, but the (biblical) principles of love, justice and equity. We should be encouraged to continue Calvin’s urging on the state to reflect these principles in its law making and adjudication.

Ian Moes earned his LL.B. from the University of Alberta Law School and is a lawyer in Vancouver, BC, where he practices in civil, constitutional, and church law matters. He is a member of Langley Canadian Reformed Church and a director of the Geneva Society for Reformational Worldview Studies.

“1929 and All That, or What Does Calvinism Say to Historians Searching for Meaning?” by Darryl Hart (Ch. 1)

2011-02-03T12:29:00.000-08:00

This review, written by George Alkema, is one of our series of reviews of chapters of David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R, 2010). We welcome your engagement and responses.

That Calvin was drawn to Clio, the muse of history, was betrayed by a matched pair of intellectual Freudian slips tucked away in his commentaries: History, he taught, is “the teacher of life” and even the “mistress of life.” Editors Hall and Padgett note these descriptions in the book’s introduction, but Darryl G. Hart, visiting professor of church history at Westminster Seminary in California and historical contributor to the volume Calvin and Culture, will have none of it. Calvinist historians, he contends, are not equipped by their faith to understand the final meaning of historical developments. He in fact implies that their Christian viewpoint may be an impediment to understanding the significance of historical events. Reformed scholars, says Hart, need “epistemological humility,” by which he means a distinct reticence in interpreting history. (Hart’s reference to 1929 highlights two influential events of that year, the stock market crash and the reorganization of Princeton seminary, which would lead to the establishment of Westminster Seminary.)

Professor Hart rests his thesis on Calvin’s concept of divine providence, by which a good God rules sovereignly over all that occurs in history and in the lives of his children. Nevertheless, in spite of our belief in divine direction and control, events appear to us mortals, says Calvin, as “fortuitous.” That “chance” quality of events is enormously significant. As Calvin points out, Moses wrote that the secret things belong to God (Deuteronomy 29:29) and not to us. We do know that all things will work to the consummation of the divine plan, but we can’t penetrate the manner of its working out. For his use of the doctrine of providence and its implications, Calvin was dependent on Augustine, who was well-respected for his philosophy of history as set out in The City of God. Not a bad ally to have, especially when intellectual frustration is implied.

Christian scholars, then, Hart teaches, don’t possess a key to understanding the significance of specific events, and can’t know how these contribute to the advancement of God’s kingdom. They are at times tempted, however, to be over-confident, because Scripture reveals the aim of history, the middle of history, and history’s end. Hart provides examples of recent and contemporary Christian (and Calvinist) historians who have practiced their craft in a manner that for him crosses the line into stating too much and making claims that are really unsustainable. Ronald Wells, for instance, wrote some nasty prose about the humanism of the Enlightenment and its implications for the subsequent history of the west. [See Ronald Wells, History Through the Eyes of Faith (Harper, 1989) and Ronald Wells, ed., History and the Christian Historian (Eerdmans, 1998).] He in fact declared that the Enlightenment led mankind down a blind alley of “moral and spiritual blackness.” Hart terms this sort of pronouncement “moral judgment,” and as such inadmissible. Indulging in it, he believes, can derail the historian’s purpose and blind her to the “variety, complexity, and mystery of the past” (p. 4). It violates the interpretive humility and the intellectual modesty that, in his view, Calvin’s doctrine of providence imposes on the historian.

Thus Hart has put Calvin into the traces of a decidedly minimalist cart. Calvinist historians must accept the limits of their competence and refrain from kicking against the goads. One may well question, however, whether this is really the emphasis we need. After all, are we known for extravagant claims and wild-eyed enthusiasms? Hardly, I would say. What is needed, rather, is a spirit of encouragement, so that as Christian historians we work with robust analysis and discernment, and with a keen understanding of the significance that historical ideas, events, and movements naturally contain. Our task is to establish connections between our faith and historical events. Let’s take as an example (more or less arbitrarily chosen) the Battle of the Boyne of 1690. This battle saw the defeat of James II and of absolutism in England: The victorious William III was willing to sign the Bill of Rights which de facto initiated limited monarchy and provided for the growth of parliamentary institutions. Are we not obligated to notice God’s providential guidance in such events?

The calling of Christian historians requires them also to defend the faith from the vicious and often faddish calumnies of secular historians bent on defaming Christianity with false representations of past events. For this and for their interpretative tasks they have the necessary tools, for Scripture affords us wisdom in the estimation of humankind and its deeds. History, “the mistress of life,” is a great teacher when her story is told with the discernment that biblical insight can provide. A pity that Daryl G. Hart does not see this.

George Alkema is head of the History Department of Guido de Brès Christian High School in Hamilton, ON. He holds an M.A. in Ancient and European History from McMaster University (1975).

Reviews of Calvin and Culture

2011-02-03T07:33:00.000-08:00

Back in September, we posted a book notice about Calvin and Culture, a new volume that is relevant to nearly every Reformed academic. We found a number of people willing to write brief reviews of many of the chapters, and today we begin rolling these reviews out, leaving some time after each one as an opportunity for discussion. Some of our contributors submitted their summaries and critiques some time ago, and others have provided their evaluations with very short notice upon our invitation, and we heartily thank all of our reviewers.

We plan to post the reviews following the sequence of the chapters. As will become clear in the brief summaries and reflections offered by our contributors, few historical figures have matched Calvin’s impact in terms of breadth and longevity. We expect you will agree that the legacy of Calvin in the academic disciplines is strong and worthy of our continued examination, participation, and advancement.

As you can see from the chapters listed at our book notice, several fields of academic study were not included, such as sociology, psychology, linguistics/language, theology. Certainly much has already been written on Calvin’s theology, but if you have any ideas on Calvin’s impact in these other areas, your contribution would be very welcome!

We hope you, our readers, will value and interact with each of these reviews. Part of the calling of the Reformed academic is to be aware of issues in other disciplines instead of being only narrowly focussed on his or her own particular area of teaching and research, and cross-fertilization of ideas is rewardingly fruitful and helps avoid reductionism.

Science vs. Religion – a Comment book review

2011-01-27T07:28:00.001-08:00

A scientist who is a Christian usually finds herself somewhat alone in two different communities: within her congregation she is perhaps the only scientist, and within her scientific network she may be the only Christian. In both cases, there is often suspicion and misunderstanding. (The same, I’m told, is true of artists who are Christians.)

For the past year we have been offering many book reviews; here is another one our readers would be interested in. At Cardus, a Canadian public policy think tank which has its roots in Reformational thought, Milton Friesen reviews Elaine Ecklund, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (Oxford University Press, 2010) for Comment online.

Here are three quotes from Friesen’s review, which is available in its entirety here.

“Despite the binary title, Science vs. Religion is about the need for greater nuance, informed communication, and mutual understanding within the complicated intertwining spaces of religious belief and scientific research.”
“Ecklund discovered that extreme positions on both sides of the traditional debate have informed the stereotypes we know so well: the atheist scientist who not only declines religion but actively opposes it in a hostile Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens way, and the fundamentalist with fingers in his ears denying direct evidence to protect a cherished belief.”
“There is indeed a very real clash of cultures born of different ideas, different ideologies, and different practices. While these variances are deep and persistent, Ecklund argues that the tone and nature of the exchange must change. Scientists need to understand far more about how people experience and practice religion and spirituality. They need to be much more skilled in translating what they do for public consumption. If religious scientists don’t open up about their religious and spiritual experiences and convictions, colleagues will continue to assume (incorrectly) that these things are absent from their professional circles.”

While I have not (yet) read Ecklund’s book itself, it appears we can all learn a lot from it in terms of approaching the valuable conversations in a mutually edifying way.

Milton Friesen, “What scientists believe”, Comment online, 21 January 2011, http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/2464/.

Festschrift for Theodore Plantinga

2011-01-13T19:50:00.000-08:00

Next week (Friday 21 January, 7-10:30pm), Redeemer University College is hosting an evening to honour the late Dr. Theodore Plantinga (1947-2008). This event will mark the publishing of a special series of essays penned by colleagues and students interacting with Prof. Plantinga’s ideas which has recently appeared from Clements Academic Publishing. The evening will feature a panel discussion moderated by Dr. Arie Leder (Calvin Seminary) and featuring Dr. John Bolt (Calvin Seminary), Dr. Craig Bartholomew (Redeemer University), and Dr. Jason Zuidema (Concordia University) on the theme:

“Does the Reformational Movement Need Left and Right Wings to Fly?”

Readers of this blog will note that Theo Plantinga was well-known in the Canadian Reformed churches, and frequently wrote about Schilder, church unity, as well as the interesting quirks he found in the CanRC and other Reformed churches with Dutch roots. He edited and wrote most of a book entitled Seeking Our Brothers in the Light: A Plea for Reformed Ecumenicity (Neerlandia: Inheritance Publications, 1992), which was essentially an appeal to the Christian Reformed churches to reconsider their response to the events of 1944 which were so formative for the CanRC. Plantinga also translated Rudolf van Reest’s biography of Schilder, entitled Schilder’s Struggle for the Unity of the Church (Inheritance Publications, 1990).

From 1996 to 2006, Theo Plantinga blogged at Myodicy, particularly addressing the CanRC in these pieces:

“Commemorating Schilder: Have We Learned Anything Yet?” link

“The Truth About the Truth: Reflections on Denominational Exclusivism” link

“In the Beginning It Was Not So” link

“Ken Wilber and the Quest for a Theory of Everything” link

“Trimming Our Sails with the Help of Philosophy” link

“No More Zorro Outfit” link

“It Goes Without Saying: Reflections on Vanzelfsprekendheid” link

I mention these only to remind our readers of Plantinga’s connection with us. The Festschrift focuses on his contributions to Calvinist philosophy.

For more information on the Festschrift see this Redeemer webpage or the Facebook event page. The book can be ordered via the Redeemer bookstore or online at Amazon.

If any of our readers wishes to offer a review of the book, please contact us.

N.T. Wright on Why Christian Character Matters: A Book Review

2010-11-29T08:16:00.000-08:00

In his well-known study Mere Christianity (Book Two), C.S. Lewis describes our world as enemy-occupied territory. Although the rightful King has landed and the ultimate victory has been assured, Satan, the “Prince of this world,” retains much of his power. The situation wherein the King’s followers find themselves today can be compared, Lewis suggests, to that of the people living in Europe between D-Day and VE-Day. Facing the enemy’s ever-increasing hostility, a hostility inflamed by desperation, they are called openly to acknowledge the rightful King and join his cause.

Anglican bishop N.T. Wright issues a similar call in his recent book After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (Harper Collins, 2010). But whereas Lewis spoke to unbelievers, calling them to repentance and faith, Wright addresses mature believers, people who want show their allegiance to Christ in their day-to-day life but are not always sure about the path to be followed. Wright seeks to answer their questions by pointing out that the Christian life does not consist in a legalistic rule-keeping but in a transformation of character, one that turns attention away from the self and focuses it on Christ and his cause and kingdom. That manner of living can be summarized in the word “discipleship” and is therefore cross-shaped. It is by these means that Christ’s rule will be extended and the realm of Satan curtailed. In Wright’s own words: “The message that Jesus – the crucified Jesus! – is the world’s true Lord is to be made precisely through the church’s following in his footsteps” (2 Pet. 2:21-23).

Such a life and such a character, as Christians well know, are the gift of the Holy Spirit. But as Wright suggests – and here he refreshingly departs from an influential Christian tradition – it is also a process requiring the believers’ active participation. The virtues that shape the character of Christ’s followers – the virtues of faith, hope, love, humility, chastity, patience, gentleness, and so on – must be constantly pursued and daily practiced, so that in the end they become almost second nature.

With this practical, accessible, and thoroughly biblical study Wright makes an important contribution to the growing literature on Christian lifestyle and discipleship in an increasingly secular society. Those struggling with the challenges of living the Christian life will find it both helpful and encouraging.* For a review see our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

*I realize that Wright’s views on justification (the “New Perspective on Paul” and so on) raise matters of concern among many of us, but these issues have no bearing on this book, or on many of Wright’s other studies. The message of the present work is unquestionably orthodox.

Absence of Mind: A Book Review

2010-11-12T07:57:00.000-08:00

Marilynne Robinson, a committed Christian and an admirer of John Calvin, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American novelist as well as a widely esteemed analyst of modern thought. Among the targets of her analytical writings is the abuse which latter-day atheists make of modern science in their attempt to denigrate both religion and the unique nature of humanity — that is, specifically, the reality of human consciousness and of the human mind.

Robinson’s target, then, is not modern science as such, but the fraudulent use of science by the enemies of religion and the cultured despisers of what Robinson calls human exceptionalism. She attacked this abuse in an earlier collection of essays (The Death of Adam, 1998, 2005), and returned to it in a distinguished lecture series at Yale University entitled Absence of Mind (Yale University Press, 2010).

We found Tim DeJong willing to review this study for us and thank him for both his careful, intelligent, and extensive analysis, and for drawing attention, in his conclusion, to the urgent need for a biblical ontology of the mind. Currently a Ph.D. student in English at The University of Western Ontario, Tim was raised in Hamilton, ON, where he received a B.A. in Comparative Literature and Philosophy from McMaster University. After spending a year in Spain to complete his M.A. in English at the Madrid Campus of Saint Louis University, he is happy to be back in beautiful south-western Ontario. He lives with his wife Biz in London, ON, where they attend Pilgrim Canadian Reformed Church.

The review can be found in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

A New Bonhoeffer Biography

2010-09-30T07:36:00.000-07:00

Prominent among Christian martyrs of modern times is the German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who in April 1945, just before the arrival of the allied armies, was executed on Hitler’s orders. Bonhoeffer became known not only for his heroic opposition to Hitler, but also and especially for the fact that this opposition was motivated by his allegiance to Christ. Resistance to the Nazi regime was for him a matter of following the Christ who (as Bonhoeffer writes in one of his books), when he calls a man, “bids him come and die.” His theology was a theology of discipleship and therefore not of triumph or worldly comfort, but of the cross.

The standard biography of Bonhoeffer was written shortly after the war by his friend and former student Eberhard Bethge. Since then many commentaries have appeared on Bonhoeffer’s life and work but no full-fledged new biography. That gap is now filled by Eric Metaxas (the author also of a recently published and highly acclaimed biography of William Wilberforce). In his Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (2010), Metaxas makes use of Bethge’s work but comes with additional material and with new insights as well. In my review I draw attention to similarities between this biography and James K.A. Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom, which I reviewed earlier. Although there are important differences between the two books, both have much to teach us about the Christian life in the world of today, and I hope that both will be read and studied among us.

For the review see our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

Poythress on Language: A Book Review

2010-09-14T14:32:00.000-07:00

Where does language come from, and how does it develop? What does the character of language tell us about the Triune God, about the nature of created reality, and about us as human beings? What happens to truth when the words which convey it are translated? The field of linguistics, especially when done from a Christian perspective, digs into questions such as these. Vern Poythress, a Reformed academic and author of Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach (which has been mentioned on this blog here and here), recently published another book in his “God-Centered” series, this one on linguistics. We are grateful to Francine VanWoudenberg Sikkema for writing an in-depth review of In The Beginning Was The Word: Language—A God-Centered Approach. The book is also freely available online as a PDF.

Francine is a graduate of Trinity Western University, where she received an M.A. in Linguistics with a focus on Bible translation. She has also studied biblical languages at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary. She is currently working as a freelance editor. She lives in Hamilton, ON with her husband Tim and their pre-born baby, where they are preparing to do mission work in Lae, Papua New Guinea.

Francine’s review of In The Beginning Was The Word is listed in our “Collected Papers”, and a direct link is here. We invite your responses.

Book Notice: Calvin and Culture

2010-09-08T08:23:00.000-07:00

We would like to draw our readers’ attention to a valuable wide-ranging new book relevant to every Reformed academic: David W. Hall & Marvin Padgett, Calvin and Culture: Exploring a Worldview (P&R Publishing, 2010). A wonderful heritage of Calvinism, as compared to many other branches of Christianity, is that it has unpacked the breadth of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ: it is much more than the salvation of human souls, but is something for each of us (including the academic) to be involved in for the glory of God and the benefit of man as we shape and reshape culture.

The book, part of the Calvin 500 series, contains one 20- to 40-page chapter each on how Calvin or Calvinism relates to the academic disciplines:

Ch. 1. 1929 and All That, or What Does Calvinism Say to Historians Searching for Meaning?, by Darryl G. Hart
Ch. 2. Law, Authority, and Liberty in Early Calvinism, by John Witte Jr.
Ch. 3. The Arts and the Reformed Tradition, by William Edgar
Ch. 4. Calvin’s Contributions to Economic Theory and Policy, by Timothy D. Terrell
Ch. 5. Calvinism and Literature, by Leland Ryken
Ch. 6. Calvin’s Legacy in Philosophy, by William C. Davis
Ch. 7. Calvin, Politics, and Political Science, by Paul Marshall
Ch. 8. Calvinism and Science, by Don Petcher
Ch. 9. John Calvin’s Impact on Business, by Richard C. Chewning
Ch. 10. Calvin and Music, by Paul S. Jones
Ch. 11. Medicine: In the Biblical Tradition of John Calvin with Modern Applications, by Franklin E. (Ed) Payne, MD
Ch. 12. Calvin as Journalist, by Warren Cole Smith
Ch. 13. The Future of Calvinism as a Worldview, by David W. Hall

We know that there are members of the Canadian Reformed churches who have academic degrees in many of the areas represented in this publication. And so we sincerely invite your reviews of this book. By special arrangement with the publisher, we are able to send you a chapter of your choice at no charge, and would like to have your concise (three- to five-paragraph) review completed for publication here on the blog. To participate, please contact us at ReformedAcademicBlog@gmail.com.

Ideology and Science

2010-08-17T12:53:00.000-07:00

The notion that not only facts but also personal and communal beliefs contribute to scientific knowledge has become commonplace. Christians such as Dr. Cornelis Van Dam have welcomed this notion, not because they want to acknowledge the social dimension of knowledge acquisition, but because it allows them arbitrarily to deny the truth of those parts of science that they believe are threatening to them and their community of faith (see his editorials in Clarion of January 29 and February 12, 2010). If the content of scientific theories is influenced by background beliefs, they argue, then this levels the playing field between, say, naturalism and theism. They do not realize that this move is very costly from a Christian perspective. For one, truth about nature is made to depend completely on the beliefs of the community with the most power. For another, truth no longer depends on what exists objectively as created by God. This raises important questions. How can people with different belief systems work together in science? Can scientific knowledge be trusted if it is shaped and sometimes distorted by beliefs operating in the background of science (background beliefs)? Is it possible to acknowledge the role of background beliefs in science (subjectivity) and avoid turning background beliefs into the sole source of knowledge of nature (subjectivism)?

In this essay I explain why background beliefs are required for the construction of theories in science. I argue that background beliefs do not normally distort scientific knowledge because God created an objectively existing reality that resists distortion. Therefore, the background beliefs of scientists do not dictate the content of scientific knowledge. The conclusion is that people with different belief systems, including Christians, can work together in scientific research.

This essay also aims at clarifying how to discern between truth and falsehood in science. The first thing to understand is that everyone — and that includes those with a lot of education — is a lay person in all domains of knowledge except one’s own specialty. This means that everyone’s knowledge is affected by what is available in the knowledge market. Thus everyone has to learn discernment. But especially Christians have to learn to separate the chaff from the wheat. Failure to do so results in an inability to give an account of one’s faith, or worse, it results in creating confusion.

The essay can be found in our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here. We welcome your responses.

Desiring the Kingdom: Book Review

2010-07-19T07:56:00.000-07:00

“Preach the Gospel always; if necessary use words.” This advice, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, is often heard today, also in our circles. It is usually quoted to remind Christians of the need to combine verbal evangelism with a truly Christian lifestyle, but it is also used in attacks on what are seen as intellectualist tendencies in the Protestant tradition. St. Francis’ words then serve to show that practice must come before doctrine, knowledge of the heart before knowledge of the mind, and discipleship before abstract teaching.

In his book Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Baker Academic, 2009), Calvin College philosopher James K.A. Smith joins the debate in support of the second usage. His thesis is that human beings are primarily desiring creatures rather than “thinking things,” and that Christian education must therefore focus not first of all on the inculcation of ideas, but on the development of the proper desires – that is, desires that are directed to God’s Kingdom. For a review of this informative and provocative study see our “Collected Papers”; a direct link is here.

Science and Ideology: A Response

2010-06-02T14:23:00.000-07:00

Clarion’s 29 January 2010 issue features an editorial by Dr. Van Dam, professor of Old Testament at the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, entitled “Science and Ideology” (v. 59, n. 3, pp. 54-56) [online here]. He suggests that in the areas of global warming and the dinosaur dating there is more pushing of ideology than science. Rick Baartman (a world-renowned physicist at TRIUMF in Vancouver, Fellow of the American Physical Society, long time member of the Surrey Canadian Reformed church, of the Brazil Mission Board, and of the board of the Geneva Society for Reformational Worldview Studies at Trinity Western University) has carefully examined the physics of global warming. Last year, he wrote a primer on the topic for Reformed Academic (17 August 2009). Given his study of the science, he identified a number of serious problems with Van Dam’s approach, and sought to have these corrected by writing a Letter to the Editor of Clarion. The letter was rejected. It is a pity that an excellent opportunity to set the record straight was denied.

And so Reformed Academic is publishing Baartman’s response, in an extended form adapted for a wider audience. It demonstrates not only significant misunderstandings by Van Dam, but also his unfortunate dependence upon minority views and the popular ideas surrounding the so-called “Climategate.” Baartman’s analysis suggests that ideology, scientific dishonesty, and data cherry-picking are more likely found among those who deny global warming than in the mainstream. The article is provided in our “Collected Papers.” (Direct links: PDF | HTML; the latter may be most convenient in terms of following the links to other sources.)

One of the reasons given for the rejection of Baartman’s original letter was that it was considered too long; it was suggested that technical points should be removed. However, when writing about science, the technical points are essential, and so we agree with Baartman that removing technical points was not a satisfactory solution.

As with other issues, we at Reformed Academic do not have any desire to promote global warming science or to simply accept what secular science has to say. Neither do we have any joy in pointing out the scientific errors of our theological and ecclesiastical leaders.

In this particular case, Baartman’s conclusion is that Van Dam’s editorial “is based partly upon a misunderstanding of the phrase ‘statistically significant,’ and partly upon dishonest information from non-expert sceptics. As well, the editorial, taking both parts together, is self-inconsistent. Moreover, it contains uncharitable allegations against the experts, and these have been found to be incorrect.” Read the paper in full for the details: PDF | HTML.

Recovering the Reformed Confession: A Book Review by David DeJong

2010-05-26T16:28:00.000-07:00

At Reformed Academic,we are interested in discussing topics in any area of academic studyfrom a Reformed Christian perspective. Thus we here present an essayreview on a recent significant volume in theology.

R. Scott Clark, professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, published Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice(P&R, 2008). We thank David DeJong, a graduate of the CanadianReformed Theological Seminary and currently a theology doctoral studentat Notre Dame, for writing the review, which can be found in our“Collected Papers” (see the sidebar); a direct link is here.

We welcome your responses to Clark’s book as well as to DeJong’s critical review.

Should We “Harmonize” Science and Revelation?

2010-05-17T18:53:00.000-07:00

Dr. Peter J. Wallace, a minister in the OPC and pastor of a PCA congregation in South Bend, Indiana, tries to answer this question by means of a historical survey of Christian harmonization attempts. The essay is entitled “The Doctrine of Creation in the History of the Church” and can be found here.

Wallace reminds us that while much of the present discussion focuses on the interpretation of the creation account, this is only one incident in the history of the church’s interaction with science, and a recent one at that. It did not begin until about 1800 when geologists, many of them Christians, concluded that the earth must be older than the generally accepted 6000 years. Before that time the length of the days had not really been “an issue” among Christians. What had long been an issue was to what extent science should affect biblical exegesis, not just in Genesis 1 but also elsewhere. And that question, Wallace observes, has been debated ever since the early Christian centuries. He places the present discussion within that larger context and shows that an acquaintance with the past can help us understand and evaluate positions on the issue that are held today.

As Wallace points out, Christians have traditionally followed two approaches with respect to science and revelation, namely conservatism (the church hesitates to accept the science of the day), and concordism (the church attempts to interpret the Bible in terms of the current scientific paradigm). He gives several examples. Among them is the initial rejection and ultimate acceptance of scientific arguments against a flat, four-cornered earth, of a solid, dome-like heavenly structure (Hebrew raqi’a) that prevents the waters above from flooding the earth, and of a moving sun, a stable earth, and an earth-centred universe. In none of these cases did the church justify its decisions on exegetical grounds. Scientific ones were decisive.

Wallace does not believe that we can eliminate the need for concordism. His concern is with the hazards of a concordist approach that tries to interpret the Bible as teaching the current scientific paradigm. Firstly, he observes, this constantly places the church a step behind the science of the day and has more than once led it to back the “wrong” science. Secondly, it threatens to interfere with a careful reading of the biblical message, and therefore with a proper exegesis. Attempts at harmonization, he believes, should never precede the exegetical work of ascertaining what the biblical text is in effect saying. If they do, i.e. if we try to harmonize our exegesis with the current scientific paradigm, we may well miss the theological meaning of the passage. Indeed, “harmonization at the level of exegesis is potentially fatal to a true understanding of the text.”

And therefore, to quote the conclusion of his essay, “If we find that the scripture portrays the sun as going around the earth, we should not seek to repress this but acknowledge that this was the scientific model of the biblical authors – which accurately expresses not only the ordinary observation of humanity, but the biblical teaching that the earth is the centre of God’s purpose in the universe. Likewise, if we determine that the raqi’a is portrayed in scripture as a solid dome or tent, then we should acknowledge that this was the common observation of ancient thinkers, and that it expresses the biblical teaching that the world was formed as a tabernacle where God is worshiped [see, inter alia, Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 78:69, Psalm 150:1]. In the same way, if we discover that the days of creation are portrayed as ordinary days, we should acknowledge that this expresses the biblical teaching that God’s pattern of six days of work and one of rest forms the pattern for our labors. We should not seek to harmonize our exegesis with modern science.”

A similar point has been made by the Dutch theologian A. L. Th. de Bruijne (in C. Trimp., ed., Woord op Schrift, 2002); see on this my article “How Do We Read The Bible?”(3) (under “Collected Papers”; direct link here). De Bruijne deals with the biblical account of Christ’s ascension. In the ancient world that account caused no problems. According to the biblical world picture the earth was below the heavens, and therefore Christ indeed “ascended” – that is, he literally moved to a higher place. In the modern picture of the universe, however, space is boundless, the earth is no longer at the centre, and there no longer is an up and down, an above and below. Some therefore suggest that we are justified in changing the biblical presentation of the ascension with one that describes Christ not as ascending, but as moving to another dimension. De Bruijne disagrees and insists that we read the text as it comes to us. Not to do so, he says, is to misjudge the uniqueness of the language God uses in revelation. The presentation of a literal ascension, for example, involves associations and incorporates meanings that will be lost when we replace it with a modern one. The association of heaven with height is found throughout the Bible, already in the O.T., and again in the New. Jesus receives the highest place; he rises above sin and misery; we can lift up our eyes to heaven; from heaven he looks down to oversee and govern all things; he will come down from heaven to take us to himself, and so on. The fact that God presents the ascension as he does means that this presentation has a particular fitness to be a vehicle of revelation, a fitness that our substitutes lack. Of course, after the text has been explained we can, De Bruijne says, supplement the biblical presentation with a modern one, such as that of a multi-dimensional universe. We should at all times be careful, however, not to absolutize our modern world picture. The Bible should be understood on its own terms.

The exegetical principle of which Wallace and De Bruijne remind us is not new, but it is sometimes forgotten in the heat of the controversy. It does not resolve every problem the Christian church meets in its interaction with science, but it is well to be reminded that the Bible’s message stands, independently of ever-changing scientific paradigms.

Note: Also of interest is Wallace’s study “The Archetypal Week: A Defense of the Analogical Day View” available here along with his other essays.

Antony Flew: 1923-2010

2010-05-13T07:22:00.000-07:00

English philosopher Antony Flew was born in a Christian family (his father was a well-known Methodist preacher), attended a Christian school, and until age 15 was a believer. At that age, however, he rejected the faith – mainly because he could not square the presence of evil with the existence of an all-powerful and compassionate God. He stuck to his atheism, and during much of the second half of the 20th century he was known as the leading atheist thinker in the English-speaking world. But in 2004, at age 81, he changed his mind and announced that he had come to believe that there is a God. Having renounced his atheism, Flew did not become a Christian, however, but turned to deism, although he did make inquiries about the faith and was for some time in contact with the well-known English theologian N.T. Wright. But as far as we know he never accepted divine revelation and remained, until his death in April 2010, a deist.

What caused his renunciation of atheism? Flew himself describes the process in his book There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (HarperOne, 2007). This publication shows that the main reason for his change of mind was the world picture produced by modern science – such as the Big Bang theory and the rapidly accumulating evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe. These scientific discoveries convinced him that the universe must have been designed, and that therefore a supernatural Intelligence must exist. Atheism simply could not explain the universe.

As I wrote in 2008, in my review of Flew’s book [Clarion, v. 57, n. 21 (10 October 2008), pp. 530-532, online here], “Intellectual arguments cannot by themselves lead to a saving knowledge of God. That is the gift of the Holy Spirit alone. Intellectual arguments can, however, move an atheist to reconsider his beliefs and conclude that he may have been wrong. This happened to the English philosopher Antony Flew (1923).” Christians, I pointed out, can learn from Flew’s experience that science-based arguments against a godless world picture can be intellectually persuasive. They should therefore make a proper use of such arguments.

For another brief but informative account of Antony Flew’s journey from Christianity to atheism to deism, see this blog posting by Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

PCA Geologists About the Age of the Earth

2010-05-08T10:22:00.000-07:00

Modern Reformation is a bimonthly magazine connected with White Horse Inn, and has URC minister Rev. Michael Horton as editor-in-chief and a number of regular contributors who are ministers and professors from the URC. In addition, as their web page states, “The editors make an intentional effort to include voices from across the Reformational spectrum in Modern Reformation’s pages.”

The May/June 2010 issue of Modern Reformation contains an article (vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 6-8) by eight PCA geologists on the age of the earth. (One of the eight is Davis A. Young, a Christian geologist who is well known among us.) The authors introduce their article by stating that they wish to provide their brothers and sisters in Christ with a few general observations, some clarification of a common misconception about geology, and “two specific examples that speak convincingly that God’s earthly creation has been around for a very long time.”

Having described evidence for an old earth, the authors deal with the response of some young-earth advocates who explain the geological evidence by stating that “Creation had to have the appearance of age, without deception, because Adam, mature forests, and even flowing rivers would all of necessity have the appearance of age.” The geologists respond: “This confuses maturity with history. A miraculously created tree might well appear mature, but apparent age arguments suggest that if Adam cut down several of these trees, he may have found 50 growth rings with matching patterns of variable growth and burn marks at rings 21 and 43. These data represent not just maturity or age but history—a history that never actually occurred. This is not the Creator described in Romans 1. We may not always have a complete understanding of the history revealed in the earth’s layers, but Reformed theology should insist it is a real history.”

The report concludes as follows:

“If the PCA recognizes that mature believers fall on either side of the age of the earth debate, does it ultimately make a difference which side you fall on? We suggest it does matter for two important reasons.

“The first is a greater appreciation of God’s handiwork. If creation conforms to God’s trustworthiness and looks old because it is old, we are free to marvel at each new discovery that further reveals the incredible complexity and grandeur of his creativity. If the earth is old and we insist it is young, every new discovery can be met only with distrust and disdain—disdain of his creation!

“The second reason is of perhaps greater importance. If the earth is old and Christians insist it is young, we risk becoming a tragic obstacle to faith for those both inside and outside the church. Non-Christians who logically understand geology conclude that the path to Christ requires belief in an intentionally deceptive god and choose to place their faith elsewhere. Covenant children who are raised with the impression that a young earth is integral to Christianity have their faith needlessly undermined when they are later confronted with the overwhelming evidence of the earth’s antiquity, and many leave the faith. It is our prayer that no Christian would be such an obstacle!”

The article can be found here, and is also listed in our “Collected Papers.”

Clarion and Young-Earth Creationism

2010-04-27T08:23:00.000-07:00

Clarion, “The Canadian Reformed Magazine,” has apparently chosen for young-earth creationism. Although for years it had published work on both old- and young-earth creationism, in recent months the magazine has refused publication of old-earth articles and devoted itself single-mindedly to attacks on both old-earth creationism and theistic evolution. It began with an article by five Canadian Reformed pastors in the issue of 1 January 2010, entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolutionism is Dangerous and Evil.” In addition, four editorials were published in the space of a few months, all of them rejecting theistic evolution and/or old-earth creationism. Since the attacks were obviously directed against Reformed Academic, we posted a series of answers to the “Ten Reasons.” Subsequently we submitted a more general response to Clarion, but the editorial committee, in accordance with its recently adopted policy, vetoed publication. We therefore now post it on the blog. (See “Collected Papers” in the sidebar for J. van der Meer et al. (2010) “Reformed Academic Responds to ‘Ten Reasons’”; direct link here.)

We do this in an attempt not only to respond to erroneous accusations at our address, but also to calm the waters. A good deal of alarm has recently been raised both at home and abroad about the dire threats posed to the CanRC by theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists. We consider that alarmism unnecessary and regrettable, but realize how it could happen. While leading Reformed theologians have in the past generally accepted old-earth creationism as worthy of defence, and while even the possibility of some sort of theistic evolution appears to have been considered without raising alarm (let alone censorship), times have changed. During the past few decades scientific creationism, an American import, has slain its millions. (On this topic see the essay “Young-Earth Creationism: A History” on this blog, posted on 27 June 2009.)

This scientific creationism spread from North America to other areas, including the Netherlands. There, however, the much older Reformed (or “continental”) tradition on the issue survived. That tradition had of course been inherited by the Canadian Reformed Churches. In the past it was not uncommon for Canadian Reformed professors of theology to admit that they had no problems with old-earth creationism, and as mentioned, Clarion was allowed to write about it as well. Lately, however, American-evangelical influences have been growing among us, and by now it looks as if that position is to replace Reformed-continentalism. Not only Clarion, but the magazine Reformed Perspective also promotes it as the only biblical position, most schools, as well as the Theological College, appear to teach it, and neither pastors nor teachers publicly admit to a different position, no matter what their private opinion.

In short, the Canadian Reformed community is in this respect in tune with what is often called the fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism. As such they differ not only from the Reformed churches in the Netherlands but also from orthodox Presbyterianism in North America – both PCA and OPC. In these churches the issues, although considered sensitive, are openly discussed. We regret that this is no longer possible in the CanRC. In fact, it was this development – and specifically the censorship instituted by Clarion – that led to the establishment of Reformed Academic. In view of the measures taken by the powers that be, our work will have to continue.

Answers to the question why we believe we must address the question of the history of the earth and of life have been given in various entries on our blog. For the benefit of our readers, we will recapitulate them here:

1. We ask for a restoration of a balance in this area that was only recently disturbed. That is, we ask for the freedom of interpretation in the matter of Genesis 1 that has existed in the Reformed churches for well over a 100 years, and that had in both the Netherlands and Canada given little rise to controversy until the inrush and acceptance of American young-earth creationism. The traditional position implied the defence of old-earth creationism, as well as the idea of a regional Flood, the questioning of flood geology, and related issues.

2. We ask for an honest discussion of the effects scientific findings may have (and in the past indeed have had) on biblical exegesis. As one example out of several, we ask the reader to remember the acceptance of the Copernican-Galilean theory of a moving earth. While we realize the difficulties evolutionary theory raises for the understanding of Genesis 1, we are convinced that ostrich policies won’t help, just as they did not help in the past. They tend to be counter-productive. Although we have questions about evolution, we are all convinced that the matter must be discussed. The reasons why, and the manner in which, are outlined in our “Response to ‘Ten Reasons’” (Reformed Academic, 1-6 April 2010) and in other posts on our blog.

3. We ask for an awareness of the predicament in which the official proclamation of scientific creationism as the only acceptable position places many believers, and especially Christian scientists and students. Whatever the theological, philosophical, and even scientific problems associated with evolution, the scientific evidence for such matters as common descent is strong. Teaching that this evidence must be ignored, and even that it is spurious (inspired by the devil, as some believe) is not convincing.

4. We ask that our churches cease distancing themselves from the orthodox Reformed ecumene by their association with evangelical fundamentalism. In this respect we draw attention to the need to engage our culture and to stop raising stumbling stones for outsiders. A literalistic hermeneutic constitutes such a stumbling block. Realizing this, an increasing number of orthodox Christians (theologians and others) who take their cultural and evangelistic tasks seriously have, even in “creationist” America, publicly declared to have accepted either old-earth creationism or theistic evolution. We do not ask our churches to follow the latter example. We do, however, believe that it is high time to devote a serious discussion to the issue. To forbid such a discussion, as is presently done in our churches, and to present an interpretation of Genesis 1 that differs from the young-earth creationist one as unbiblical, is erroneous and dangerous.

We invite your careful reading of, and comments upon, our concluding response to “Ten Reasons” (direct link here).

Response to “Ten Reasons” – 10

2010-04-06T09:46:00.000-07:00

Response to “Ten Reasons” – 9

2010-04-06T08:32:00.000-07:00

Response to “Ten Reasons” – 8

2010-04-05T16:06:00.000-07:00

Response to “Ten Reasons” – 6 and 7

2010-04-05T07:36:00.000-07:00

Response to “Ten Reasons” – 4 and 5

2010-04-03T07:20:00.000-07:00

Response to “Ten Reasons” – 2 and 3

2010-04-01T14:27:00.000-07:00

This is a continuation of our response to an article entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil” published in Clarion in January. See this introductory response for the context and our approach. In the interest of clarity, and to avoid further unnecessary polarization, we presented these responses in advance to the authors of “Ten Reasons” to provide an opportunity to identify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation. No response was received.

Original from Clarion [numbered for our responses below]

Evolution requires pre-Adamite human beings - Luke 3:38 disallows it

The genealogy of the Lord Jesus, as Luke gives it, ends with saying that Seth was the son of Adam, and that Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). In the Greek, the word “son” occurs only in v. 23 (“[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, etc.”). But “son” is clearly implied every time. Our English translation, supplying the word “son” in every instance, is not incorrect.

To be a son of someone is to have your existence from that person. Seth had his existence from Adam. To use an old expression, he was the fruit of Adam’s loins. Adam had his existence from God–of course, in a way different from how Seth was of Adam. The point of comparison is that as Seth was directly of Adam, so Adam was directly of God.

The context of this verse is very instructive. The genealogy of Jesus is preceded by the account of his baptism. There the Father calls Jesus “my Son.” Context is king. As the eternal Son of God has his existence directly from the God the Father, so Adam had his existence directly from God.

Those who believe that man and chimpanzees have a common (animal) ancestor will have difficulty with the position that Adam was the direct creation of God. They will suppose that Adam had ancestors, possibly human, assuredly animal. Luke 3:38 would contradict that supposition.

The only way to get around the conclusion that Luke 3:38 teaches that Adam was the direct creation of God (and not the offspring of another creature) is to take the position that Luke 3:38 is mythological.[12] (GvP)

Evolution challenges God’s self-revelation in Scripture

The scriptural doctrine of creation is not an issue that can be pushed to the side as a “non-essential” of the Christian faith. Many will claim that Darwinian evolution and the Christian faith can co-exist as partners, or at the very least as peaceful neighbours, that the matter of “how” God created is not as important as the fact that He created. However, Scripture repeatedly reveals that God’s act of creation by the awesome power of his Word is intimately related to, and indeed one with, the central doctrines of our faith.

Why is our Lord and God worthy to receive glory and honour and power? Because He created all things, and by His will they existed and were created” (Rev 4:11).

How can the Lord have the power to call his people, and to redeem us? He is the One who created us; He is the one who formed us (Isa 43:1).

What is the true nature of the Son of God? Through Him the Father created the world and He upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb 1:2,3).

In Isaiah 40, the Lord speaks through his prophet, detailing the close relationship between his creative power and his personal work of redemption. His power in creating the world and sustaining it, an infinite power and authority that had no need[13] for millions, or billions, of years of evolutionary development, is intimately connected to his power to know his people personally, to save us, and to give us all that we need. The God who created the world in an instant,[14] who arranged and filled the universe in an unimaginable, awesome show of power and might, is also our Redeemer (Isa 40:25-29).

The Darwinian doctrine of evolution takes[15] the awe-inspiring creative power of God Almighty and places it in the hands of genetic mutations, chance,[16] and aeons of natural selection and development. It creates a distance[17] between God and his creation; it detracts from the power of God’s creative Word; it subtracts from God’s glory, and it paints a picture of the one true God that does not at all line up with his self-revelation in Scripture.

Who is our God? How should we live in the presence of such a God? “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him! For He spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm” (Ps 33:8,9). This is the God who has revealed Himself. This is the God we worship and adore.[18] (JW)

Responses by Reformed Academic

12. The assumption in this “Reason” is that, in the case of humans, animal ancestry and direct creation by God are mutually exclusive. No reasons are given why God could not have created Adam from animal ancestors. The Bible characterizes all things as the result of God’s creative activity irrespective of whether the things created come about supernaturally or naturally. In both cases God creates. Therefore, the conclusion that Luke 3:38 must be mythological does not follow. We understand the concern about a possible denial that Adam was the son of God. We certainly do not take that position because we take Luke 3:38 to be true.

In the case of Adam, this section seems to posit a dichotomy between being a son of God and having any other ancestors, but in the case of Jesus, it acknowledges both “opposites.” But we are all sons of God (Galatians 3:26), as well as sons of our parents. Jesus was the son of David, David the son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1), etc. There is thus no need for the dichotomy, and so this section seems irrelevant.

13. Certainly God did not need millions or billions of years to create the world. He could have created the universe yesterday, with all memories and historical records in place. But since scripture does not speak about the age of the earth (or of the universe), then, as Calvin says, “He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere...Astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For as astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God” (Commentary on Genesis 1:6 & 16). Taking time to make something does not detract from God’s glory either; it is a false dichotomy between fiat and process. After all, why did God let the Israelites suffer through a history of redemption if He could have redeemed them in an instant? Because it was in God’s plan. If that history can be in God’s plan, why would that not apply to the history of the Earth as studied in geology?

14. The claim that creation was instantaneous cannot be supported from Scripture. Even those who affirm a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 see God working through processes over time.

15. No explanation – scientific or otherwise – ever takes away the power of God and replaces it with natural causes. That view would be the position of an atheist or a materialist such as Dawkins. As Reformed Christians, we believe that God is involved in everything including what are called “chance” events. The notion of “chance” is often misunderstood as referring to fate, but no Christian is bound to that atheistic interpretation. The scientist who is a Christian acknowledges the God of creation and providence while also investigating the lawful patterns of regularity by which the Trinitarian God speaks the world into being and behaviour.

16. A Reformed doctrine of creation and providence acknowledges a place for “chance,” as seen from the human perspective, without implying this is hands-off for God (Proverbs 16:33). In all things, God’s decree is sovereign.

17. The Reformed doctrine of creation and providence holds to both the transcendence and immanence of God. God forming and filling creation is an intimate personal process.

18. In case there is any doubt, we at Reformed Academic fully accept all of Scripture, including (especially) the texts cited here. In fact, Dr. Arnold Sikkema has written a paper entitled “Laws of Nature and God’s Word for Creation”, Fideles v. 2 (2007) pp. 27-43 (accessible at our “collected papers” in the sidebar; direct link here), which cites many of these same passages in support of a Reformed Christian understanding of the character of natural laws.

Response to “Ten Reasons” - 1

2010-04-01T08:07:00.000-07:00

This is a continuation of our response to an article entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil” published in Clarion in January. See this introductory response for the context and our approach. In the interest of clarity, and to avoid further unnecessary polarization, we presented these responses in advance to the authors of “Ten Reasons” to provide an opportunity to identify any misunderstanding or misrepresentation. No response was received.

Original from Clarion [numbered for our responses below]

Evolution must regard Genesis 2:8 as mythical

In Genesis 2:4-7 we read that God formed man from the dust of the ground and then He breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and man became a living soul.

God created man (in Hebrew: Adam) from the dust[6] of the ground (in Hebrew: adamah) and he became a living soul. This account of the creation of man resounds with the special character of this creative act of God.[7] On the previous creation days, God said, “Let there be…!” And it was so. And it was all very good. But now in Genesis 2:7 we read of the Lord God, the covenant God, who in a special creative act, gives the breath of life to Adam formed from adamah.[8]

Now, if evolutionists are right, then this is figurative language.[9] Some biblical scholars have rejected a literal “potter” interpretation because they see this as close to disrespect of God: “Did God fashion the liver, the lungs of clay?” they might ask. “God was not concerned with creating a scientific text when he told us of his creative work; He just wanted to communicate that man did not descend from the gods, but that He was part of this creation,” they would say.

However, if this creation story is figurative, allegorical, mythical or some other kind of story, other than history, then at Genesis 2:8 we have a problem. For God put that man he had formed into a garden. There, together with the woman, he was tempted to rebel against his Creator and fell into sin. Any literary approach to the narrative would make no distinction between the forming of the man in verse 7, and the formed man in verse 8. So if this is an allegorical myth, it must continue into the following verses. It would seem disingenuous to claim verse 7 to be myth, and verse 8 to be history.[10]

Of course the story of the fall, and the record of historical Adam are foundational to the New Testament doctrine of redemption and atonement. Paul and the Lord Jesus accept the historical reality of Adam. Paul, in Romans, works out the doctrine of substitutionary atonement based on the historical Adam. The doctrine of the covenant also is tied into a historical Adam.

Evolutionists, who claim that the human race descended from pre-adamite primates need to be clear and honest: the Reformed doctrine of atonement and covenant would need to rewritten, for there can be no real Adam formed from adamah.[11] (JvP)

Responses by Reformed Academic

6. In this context, thought must be given as to what “dust” means. Considering Psalm 103:14, we know that even we today are created from dust. (See also Genesis 18:27; I Kings 16:2; Job 10:9; Job 34:15; Psalm 90:3.) Thus, comparing Scripture with Scripture, we see that Adam’s creation from “dust” does not necessarily mean that God pushed around some mud and formed a humanoid shape. Instead, “dust” has a range of acceptable interpretations including “the material Adam is made of,” “the humble status of Adam,” and “the clay used by the divine potter to fashion Adam.” Contrary to this, many other religions assume humanity was formed out of divine substance.

7. Christians who lend credence to the theory of common ancestry fully affirm that the creation of man is a special creative act of God; they also affirm the clear Biblical teaching of the soul, and that the human person is made uniquely and specially in the image of God. (Among others, these include Denis Alexander, Denis Lamoureux, Francis Collins, Jitse van der Meer.)

8. We fully affirm the main point of this paragraph, namely that man is a special creation. This point, though, is grounded in the fact that God breathes the breath of life into Adam. The precise meaning of “dust” in this context does not affect the clear fact of the special creation of man.

9. This assertion is correct for adherents to evolutionism as a worldview, but not for those who work with the theory of biological evolution while rejecting the worldview. The latter are not forced to accept a figurative or mythical interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. Instead, just like each of the Gospels offers history written from different perspectives, so they can take Genesis as offering history with a religious perspective. While a religious perspective does not remove the historical reality referred to in a text, it also does not conform to modern scholarly standards for history writing. In the words of C. John Collins [Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2006) p. 13, n. 17]: “…if we say that an account makes a historical truth claim, that does not settle every question we might ask about whether, for example, things are narrated in the order in which they occurred; or whether the description is complete; or whether we must interpret the account without reference to metaphor, hyperbole, literary devices, etc.” Christians who take the Bible seriously can take Gen. 1 & 2 as history while not taking it as a “photographic report” as the five authors appear to suggest. Their view that evolution forces a figurative, allegorical, or mythical interpretation on the text of Gen. 1 & 2 is overly simplistic and does not stand up to criticism.

10. From what we just wrote it will be clear that a straw man is being set up. This strategy is constantly repeated against our protests and does not promote the neighbour’s good name. Instead, it carelessly identifies us as evolutionists and then raises all the concerns that they think apply to evolutionists. Only they do not apply to us. We at Reformed Academic affirm the historicity of the Genesis account, while many seem to think that we seek to deny it, consider it a myth, or force upon it a new interpretation to fit modern science. Instead, we wish to use sound Reformed hermeneutical principles, including letting Scripture interpret Scripture, emphasizing the redemptive-historical approach, and considering the cultural, literary, and textual, historical context, especially seeking to recognize how modernist and enlightenment thinking has in recent centuries clouded our interpretation of what the original author(s) and readers and hearers meant and received. An important aspect of this is to recognize that our understanding of the world does and indeed cannot but influence our understanding of the Word (and vice versa of course). After Galileo, most Reformed believers had no difficulty in correcting interpretations of passages such as Psalm 93:1 and Joshua 10:12,13 which had earlier been taken, on a so-called “plain sense reading,” to oppose the developing sun-centred model. However, note carefully that it is not science which brings an interpretation to Scripture, but new scientific understandings can be the occasion for more careful hermeneutics and exegesis in cases where even a long-standing traditional interpretation, though likely not an original understanding, of a passage is called into question.

11. Neither do we join with those who regard Adam as a-historical.

Creation Science Misuses of Scripture

2010-03-08T19:14:00.000-08:00

In this post I would like to comment on two passages of Scripture that are commonly used by the Creation Scientists to support their interpretation of Scripture, but upon careful reading can be shown to be quoted out of context.

Job 38:4
The first passage is from Job 38:4ff., which begins, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” This text is commonly used to say that since nobody but God was present at creation, we should listen to what he said about it in his Word e.g. here. Certainly, if it’s a question of God’s Word against ours, the choice should be obvious but it isn’t that simple.

This interpretation of Job 38:4 misunderstands the point that God is making to Job. Since a text without a context is a pretext, let's look at the context. Job 38:1 states that God answered Job, but in response to what? For the answer we need to go back to chapter 31, where Job defends his innocence before God, stating that he does not deserve the calamity which God has allowed Satan to inflict upon him. Job’s defense is in response to the accusations of his "friends" that he must have done something wicked. The younger Elihu gets the point though, and chastises Job for trying to understand why God has allowed these things to happen to him, that Job in a sense is accusing God of being unfair.

Thus Job’s challenging of God’s ways is the context to chapter 38, where God tells Job that he darkens counsel by words without knowledge (v. 2). Yes, chapter 38 speaks of creation, but it is described in the context of God's wisdom compared to that of Job. The next chapter speaks about God's wisdom in making things the way they are (incidentally, this chapter and chapter 41 are strong evidence against the notion of a gentle and death-free world before the Fall, because it is clear that God made fierce creatures as we find them today e.g. 39:30). In chapter 40:8 the Lord returns to the theme by asking Job, “Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?”

In short, the purpose of Job 38-41 is not a warning for us not to look into the history of creation; rather, it is a warning for us not to question God's ways.

Isaiah 11
The second passage I would like to address is Isaiah 11:6-9, “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them...” This passage is commonly used by Creation Science supporters to describe a return to Eden-like conditions in the new heavens and new earth (or by some dispensationalists, in the millennium) e.g. here. However, a careful study of this passage will show that it's not talking about Eden-like conditions or animal behaviour, but as C. John Collins explains in chapter 10 of his book Science & Faith: Friends or Foes (Crossway Books, 2003), it's speaking about the church.

In the previous chapters of Isaiah we read a series of pronouncements of judgment against Israel and against the instruments God uses against Israel, including Assyria. In these chapters we see punishments and promises of restoration.

Chapter 11 gets back to restoration but in this case we see not only restoration after the captivity but in this prophecy’s double fulfillment we also see the promise of the Messiah and the future of the church. Using beautiful word-pictures Isaiah describes the church, but in words that fit the context of the previous chapters. Assyria is an instrument of God's judgment but will be punished for its sin (10:12), but the Messiah will judge justly (11:4).

In chapter 11:5-9 we read about the future of the church when the Messiah will reign i.e. the present time. Note the back-reference to these verses in verses 10 and 11, "in that day" when the church will be gathered from all over the world. The Israelites would be dispersed but God’s people would be gathered from all over the world (v. 12) as the church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, Paul quotes verse 10 in Romans 15:12 in this exact context.

So how do verses 5-9 fit into this picture? We've had military descriptions of judgment and battles in the earlier chapters of Isaiah but the reign of the Messiah will be a striking contrast, with otherwise unthinkable associations: wolf/lamb, leopard/goat, calf/lion, child/cobra etc. This is a direct contrast with the actions of the wolf, leopard and lion that Jeremiah describes (Jeremiah 5:6).

Isaiah's description is a picture of the new heavens and earth, but it’s also a prophecy that is being fulfilled already today. Christ is gathering his church from all over the world. We are brothers and sisters in Christ with people who, in the minds of Isaiah’s original readers, would otherwise be enemies. The church is filled with unthinkable combinations of people, not tied to any nation or ethnic group. Thus this passage is not about biology, it's about Christ building his church.

To sum up, a careful study of Scripture does not support the Creation Science argument for an idyllic pre-Fall animal world, nor does it support the idea that we cannot determine anything about the creation of the world. If we are to use Scriptural arguments, it is important that we understand the context to use them correctly.

Readers interested in learning more about this would do well to read the Collins book mentioned above.

Tim Keller on Evolution and the Bible

2010-03-06T10:27:00.000-08:00

Many secular and many evangelical voices agree on one ‘truism’ – that if you are an orthodox Christian with a high view of the authority of the Bible, you cannot believe in evolution in any form at all. New Atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins and creationist writers such as Ken Ham seem to have arrived at a consensus on this, and so more and more in the general population are treating it as given. If you believe in God, you can’t believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution, you can’t believe in God.

This creates a problem for both doubters and believers. Many believers in western culture see the medical and technological advances achieved through science and are grateful for them. They have a very positive view of science. How then can they reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their theological beliefs? Seekers and inquirers about Christianity can be even more perplexed. They may be drawn to many things about the Christian faith, but, they say, ‘I don’t see how I can believe the Bible if that means I have to reject science.’

This is how Tim Keller, founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Manhattan, introduces a paper entitled “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Lay People.” [This paper is listed in our “collected papers” (see sidebar) and a direct link is here.] Herein he looks for possibilities of reconciling faith and evolutionary science. He begins with a discussion of the four main problems orthodox Protestants have with evolution, namely (1) the authority of the Bible, (2) the tendency to equate evolution as a biological theory with evolutionism as an anti-Christian worldview, (3) the historicity of Adam and Eve, and (4) the problem of violence and evil. The most difficult one, he remarks, is number 3, the historicity of Adam and Eve. Unlike some theistic evolutionists, Keller refuses to deny this historicity, which, he shows, is clearly affirmed in both the Old and the New Testament. He emphasizes that in the discussion about science and faith it is not science, but the Bible that has to have the final word. As he writes at the end of his paper, “Psalm 19 and Romans 1 teach that God’s glory is revealed as we study his creation, yet in the end both of those passages say that it is only Scripture which is the ‘perfect’ revelation of God’s mind (Psalm 19:7). We must interpret the book of nature by the book of God.” He continues, quoting O.T. scholar Derek Kidner, “It cannot be said too strongly that Scripture is the perfect vehicle for God’s revelation… To read it with one eye on any other account is to blur its image and miss its wisdom.”

How then can the difficulties be overcome? In trying to answer that question, Keller refers to relevant studies by several Christian scientists, theologians, and philosophers. He considers a number of possible models and in the end expresses preference for the one proposed by Derek Kidner in Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (IVP, 1967). Kidner’s model admits of human evolution but nevertheless holds that Adam was the first creature into which God breathed human life, and that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humankind. What are we to say about Keller’s paper? Are Keller and Kidner convincing? Neither of them states that he has spoken the last word on the issue. Keller tells us, “When Derek Kidner concluded his account of human origins, he said that his view was an ‘exploratory suggestion…only tentative, and it is a personal view. It invites correction and a better synthesis.’” That, Keller adds, “is the right attitude for all of us working in this area.” (Readers of this blog, incidentally, will notice that our blog partner Dr. Jitse van der Meer sees eye to eye with Dr. Kidner in the matter of human evolution, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the descent of all humans from Adam, and that he affirms the same tentative approach as Kidner and Keller.)

In conclusion: I realize that some (many?) of our readers will take Keller’s approach as yet another attempt to “fit” evolution into the Bible. I want to urge these people to resist that temptation and to take Keller at his word when he says that the Bible has the last word. I also realize that I run the risk of being criticized for drawing attention to this paper. Such a reaction will not surprise me. I myself have questions; and I much appreciate Keller’s (and Kidner’s) statement that we have to look at their arguments as explorative and tentative. Theirs is indeed not necessarily the last word.

The reason for the decision to introduce the paper is my conviction, shared by the other members of the blog, that we should acquaint ourselves with attempts made by orthodox, well-informed Christians to deal with one of the most difficult problems that Christianity meets today in the realm of ideas. Rather than dismiss these men as by definition apostate, we should join the discussion. I hope that our scientists, theologians, philosophers and others will do so. To facilitate the conversation we have posted a link to Keller’s paper at our blog.

Response to Clarion’s “Ten Reasons” – Introduction

2010-03-04T14:06:00.000-08:00

In past years Clarion, the semi-official magazine of the Canadian Reformed Churches, used to publish articles by both old- and young-earth creationists. In fact, several old-earth pieces written by Dr. F.G. Oosterhoff were published in 2002-03 and are listed in our collected papers. Early last year, however, the editorial committee refused, quite suddenly and unexpectedly, to publish a response by old-earth creationist Dr. Tony Jelsma to an article by Dr. C. Van Dam, which promoted the young-earth theory (Clarion, 27 March 2009). Jelsma was told that the editorial committee had instituted a moratorium on any articles about origins. The reason given was that such articles caused unrest and that a cooling-off period was needed. Various appeals having been rejected, we started this blog in April 2009, beginning with the publication of the Jelsma piece.

Subsequently, contributors heard that the moratorium would be lifted by 1 January 2010. Nevertheless, a series on the history of young-earth creationism, written by a regular contributor to Clarion and submitted for publication at the conclusion of the moratorium, was refused. Instead, Clarion celebrated the lifting of the moratorium by publishing an article by five authors attacking evolution (a topic that had nothing to do with the moratorium). Subsequent issues contained articles by Dr. Van Dam, attacking, as before, old-earth creationism (Clarion, 29 January and 12 February 2010). Meanwhile the article by the old-earth creationist continued to be vetoed as unsuitable. (It had been published in different form on this blog under the title “Young-Earth Creationism: A History.”)

Members of Reformed Academic have reacted to the new policy by means of private correspondence and letters to the editor. They will continue to do so, and they intend to continue to deal with the issue also by means of this blog. The present series of postings concentrates, however, on the article by the five authors. We promised to do so early in February. This article is by W. Bredenhof, W. Geurts, G. VanPopta, J. VanPopta, J. Witteveen, and was entitled “Ten Reasons Why Evolution is Dangerous and Evil”, Clarion, v. 59, n. 1 (1 January 2010), pp. 6-9 [available electronically here - link provided here; our quotes are from the printed edition].

We are now ready to fulfill this promise. It is our intention to deal with the introduction and the “ten reasons” one at a time. The Clarion comments will be given first, followed by our responses to numbered items. These responses are co-authored and also use material contributed by those who have written us privately. After we have finished responding to each of the reasons one at a time, dealing with specific details, we plan to post a concluding general response.

Original from Clarion [numbered for our responses below]

“Over the years, people in the Canadian Reformed Churches have traditionally viewed the theory of evolution as an enemy of the Christian faith. However, recently there have been voices encouraging us to reconsider this stance.[1] This deeply concerns us. Now, just as in the past,[2] we need to be firmly convinced that this theory stands opposed to the clear teachings of Scripture and that it has no place in a biblical worldview. In this article, we want to outline ten reasons why evolution should still be regarded as dangerous and evil and why it should be taught as such in our Reformed homes, schools, and churches.

Before we begin, we need to be clear about our definition of “evolution.”[3] We understand it to refer to a theory about the origins of life and the diversification of that life into various modern-day organisms, including man. According to this theory, all forms of life are related in common ancestry through an evolutionary process thought to have taken place over billions of years. Evolution teaches that all life is descended from a single-celled organism which in turn evolved from inert chemicals.[4] Finally, we note that evolution is not merely a scientific theory but a foundational component of many unbelieving worldviews.[5]

Responses by Reformed Academic

1. Although the authors do not mention us, it is clear that we are the ones they believe are responsible for this encouragement to reconsider the anti-evolutionary stance; in fact, they include some of the contents of our blog without citation. We therefore begin our commentary by quoting from one of our earliest blog postings (29 April 2009): “Concerns have been raised about an article on this blog which appears to promote theistic evolution, i.e., an evolutionary process which took place under God’s guidance. We want our readers to know that the contributors to this blog are by no means in agreement on the scientific and theological validity of theistic evolution, and we further assure them that its promotion is not a ‘hidden agenda’ of this blog.
“Theistic evolution is accepted, however, among an increasing number of Bible-believing, orthodox Christians. For that reason we believe that we must discuss the theological and scientific issues surrounding the theory among ourselves and also on the blog. It is an issue that we may not be able to resolve adequately but that we also do not, for that reason, want to censor or ‘run away from.’ Informed readers will be able to appreciate the difficulties faced by biologists who encounter what appears to be scientific evidence for evolution but wish to remain faithful to Scripture and the Reformed confession. We do not want to ignore this difficulty and we hope that on our blog the matter can be discussed publicly, in a brotherly way, without acrimony.”

2. It is unfortunate that the authors seem unwilling to address the clear history of our own heritage in which men like Kuyper, Bavinck, Schilder, Ohmann, Faber, while clearly opponents of evolution, all considered the possibility of an older earth. Furthermore, it is unfortunate the Clarion refuses to publish the careful historical study of Dr. F.G. Oosterhoff, an earlier version of which appeared here despite claiming to have lifted a moratorium which lasted (with two lapses) from March to December 2009 on topics regarding origins and Genesis.

3. We applaud the authors’ stated intention to clearly define evolution. It becomes apparent, however, that two different definitions get conflated, as some authors address evolutionism, the naturalistic philosophy and worldview, rather than the biological theory of evolution; furthermore they focus on the application of the theory which addresses human evolution.

4. The biological theory of evolution does not, strictly speaking, include a theory of the origin of life, but just its subsequent development. It is indeed a common misconception, shared even by many scientists, that origin and development are non-problematically of a piece. A Christian necessarily separates origin from development.

5. It is vitally important in any Christian discussion of evolution to make clear distinctions between evolution and evolutionism. It is true that many atheists use the theory of evolution as “proof” of their denial of God, but this denial is not scientifically founded. Evolution is no more than a scientific theory. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is an all-encompassing naturalistic philosophy and worldview which goes far beyond the theory of evolution. It claims that nature is all there is, was, or ever shall be. In particular, it claims that there is no God who has created the universe, who governs it or interacts with it or with anything in it in any way. Adherents to evolutionism hold that all that exists evolved, even if no scientific theory exists or is within reach. They believe that material composition exhausts ontology; i.e., that the only valid thing one can say about anything in the world is a scientific description of what it is made of, what its material origin is, and that any discussion of purpose, value, meaning is simply superstition. They claim that there is no discontinuity between molecules and man; i.e., that there is only a purely naturalistic connection, without God-ordained distinctions, between all things within creation so that ultimately humans and hills and humus are essentially the same, each being just purely natural. They argue that morality and religion are purely human constructs. Often proponents of evolutionism will (illegitimately) tout the theory of evolution as if it supports their philosophy. This is similar to how moral relativists in the early twentieth century imagined Einstein’s theory of relativity as lending scientific validity to their notions. His response – wishing he had entitled his work a theory of absolutes – clarifies that it was semantics, and not the scientific content of the theory, which was being misappropriated.

As will become clear in further remarks, while some regard the biological theory of evolution itself as a danger, the real opponent is instead evolutionism. Evolutionism can be immediately rejected as un-Christian since it claims there is no God. Christians who give serious consideration to the biological theory of evolution, however, fully acknowledge the activity and sovereignty of God in creation, providence, and redemption.

Regent College Pastors’ Conference: Science & Faith

2010-02-19T19:11:00.000-08:00

In January, I mentioned a conference to be held on the east coast, and now there’s one in a similar vein on the west coast. At least one of Langley’s pastors is attending, and I would highly recommend this as a wonderful opportunity to have some sustained engagement on a number of issues regarding science & Christianity. The seven main sessions are listed below, and you can get all the details at the conference website. Of these speakers, I have only heard Alexander before, presenting at TWU three years ago on Dawkins. A good number of Canadian Reformed ministers have told me they’ve benefited significantly from events, speakers, and resources at Regent College in the past, and thus I expect this conference too will be well received and valued. Thus, if you read this, and live in the vicinity of Vancouver, recommend it to your pastor as well.

Below is a preview of the detailed information, taken from the website.

Wonder and Devotion: Bringing Science and Faith Together for the Church

Why a conference about science and theology for pastors? One of our evangelical forefathers believed theology and science to be the “twin daughters of heaven.” In fact, during the 19th century twenty percent of the content of the Princeton Review theological journal was of a scientific nature! Only our capitulation to the influence of the Enlightenment which dichotomized faith and science makes this seem strange. You can relax though! This conference is expressly for non-scientist pastors as well as the geeks!

Sadly, the worldview of Modernity and the conflict around the science of origins has led many of us as pastors to stay away from engaging science in our public ministries, with the consequence that many young people flounder, lose their faith, or abandon careers in science. Even more importantly, we have robbed ourselves—and our people—of one of the “two books” by which God has revealed himself. We have dulled the sense of wonder and worship that emerges from the habits of discovering and delighting in science.

We hope through this conference to recover that sense of wonder by re-awakening the inquisitiveness and curiosity that ought to characterize us as persons made in the image of God the Creator—commissioned to continue his creative work. This will equip us to affirm the work of scientists as devotion, to invoke in our young people fearlessness about discovering all reality, and spur our people on in fulfilling what it means to be humans fully alive living out the first great mission given to all humans—the creation mandate. We won’t ignore the controversial matters, but above all we will be about developing a way of being that is the heart of the Gospel, which calls us to live in creation and participate joyfully in the new creation.

Main Speakers
Ross Hastings: The Coinherence of Faith and Science: Matter that Matters (an exposition of John 1:1-18)

Denis Alexander: How and Why are Science and Faith First Cousins?

Alan Torrance: Unsaddling the Four Horsemen of Modern Atheism! Liberating Science from Naturalism

Denis Alexander: Creation or Evolution—Do We Have to Choose?

Alan Torrance: The Challenge of Neuroscience: Toward a Theological Perspective on Being a Person

Iain Provan: “There Was Light” - Or Possibly Darkness: Reading Genesis 1-2

Darrell Johnson

Book Review on Evolutionary Emergence

2010-02-11T22:49:00.000-08:00

One of the struggles that I as a biologist have when looking at the evidences for evolution is an apparent conflict between pattern and process. By this I mean that when I look at the DNA sequence evidence, it seems to point to common ancestry. However, when I look at evolutionary mechanisms I am much less convinced. One of the sticking points is how the major evolutionary transitions might have occurred – for example in the case of the origin of life or the origin of humans. These evolutionary transitions include the appearance of new traits that cannot be reduced to their constituent parts – a phenomenon called evolutionary emergence. Two recent books address this evolutionary emergence but from opposing perspectives. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design was written by Stephen Meyer, a fellow of the Discovery Institute and a proponent of Intelligent Design. Purpose in the Living World? Creation and Emergent Evolution was written by Jacob Klapwijk, a philosopher in the Dooyeweerdian tradition. As I point out in the review, although these two authors are not writing with each other in mind, their arguments do intersect at the question of evolutionary emergence, in particular on that of the mechanism of the origin of life. In this review I compare and contrast the arguments made by these two authors to see which arguments are more in line with what we see in creation. This review will be published in Dordt College’s publication Pro Rege in March but you are getting a preview here (with permission).

Response to Clarion coming

2010-02-04T13:37:00.000-08:00

Our readers who also read Clarion will no doubt have noticed a significant effort by several writers in that unofficial organ of the Canadian Reformed churches to oppose evolution and/or promote the views of scientific creationists.

Be assured that we are well aware of significant problems in the positions taken by many of these writers, including their perception and subsequent portrayal of our own positions. First and foremost among these is a continuing lack of engagement of the distinction between evolution as a biological theory and evolutionism as an all encompassing philosophical worldview. Second is the misperception that we are attempting to use results of modern science to force a reinterpretation of Scripture. Third is a complete failure to face matters of Biblical and scientific hermeneutics, that is, the interpretation of Scripture and creation. Fourth is a troubling reliance upon the dubious though ever popular rhetoric of young-earth creationist organizations.

We expect in the next month or so, as time permits, to set the record straight by articulating these and other points in more detail, for the sake of the gospel and the advancement of God’s Kingdom for His glory, perhaps by means of responses in Clarion but also on this blog itself. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, your comments and E-mail responses to this blog entry are most welcome. Please be aware that we will likely not respond to many comments in detail --- after all we are drafting our detailed replies --- but we would appreciate hearing what our readers think about what’s transpired in Clarion.

Sincerely, from all of us at
Reformed Academic

Conference: Reformed Theologians and the Discovery Institute

2010-01-21T09:16:00.000-08:00

There are dozens of conferences annually throughout the world touching upon issues of science & Christianity, but I just received word of a conference which might be of special interest to our readers due to the fact that it is hosted at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) and features a number of well-known Reformed theologians.

The conference (March 12-13) is planned to be of special relevance to ministers and seminary & university students. If I was in the Hamilton area, I would seriously consider organizing a 7-hour road trip, enjoying fellowship and conversation in each direction. It will a couple of days well spent, especially in these times when there is much lack of clarity (to put it charitably) surrounding the issues in our ecclesiastical circles.

The only hesitation I have in recommending this conference is that it is co-sponsored with the Discovery Institute which will make this conference heavily weighted towards intelligent design (ID). ID is certainly an important position among those who object to evolutionism, which (unlike the biological theory of evolution) claims nature is all there is and thus despises any ontological notion of a Creator. But it will be worth remembering that many corners of the ID movement accept selected aspects of the biological theory of evolution (as do some elements within young-earth creationism), and that besides ID there are a number of other ways in which Bible-believing Christians, including Reformed believers, conceive of the relationship between scientific theory and the Christian faith.

I have included below some material from the conference announcement. For full details, please see www.discovery.org/e/1271.

Westminster Seminary will be hosting a Science and Faith Conference on March 12th and 13th, and would like to invite you to join us. This conference will be tackling some important questions: Are science and Faith compatible? What is the role of Christianity in the founding of modern science? How do we respond to the effect of Darwinism in our culture?

Speakers will include Dr. Vern Poythress, author of Redeeming Science; Dr. K. Scott Oliphint, author of Reasons for Faith; Dr. Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design; Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery; Dr. C. John Collins, author of Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?; Dr. John West, author of Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science; Dr. Bruce Gordon, co-editor of The Nature of Nature; and Dr. Paul Nelson.

This conference will be of special interest to anyone in church leadership, seminary and college students, or those involved in both a scientific and a Christian community. The speakers will be available during breaks to go into more detail about some of the issues and topics they will discuss, and on Saturday there will be a formal question and answer period during lunch.

A Review of Deep Church: A Third Way Between Emerging and Traditional

2009-12-12T13:27:00.000-08:00

We are living in a time of profound cultural change. Postmodernism has made its imprint on our society’s worldview, and its effects are noticeable practically everywhere. The church is not exempted. Many are the complaints the “traditional” church hears about its perceived shortcomings, such as its modernistic intellectualism, its individualism, tribalism, tardiness in interacting with the prevailing culture, tendency to fragment, and intolerance of the views of outsiders. In the evangelical world the discontent has given rise to a separate movement, that of the emerging (or emergent) church. That movement, which is steeped in the postmodern worldview, is spreading widely and is affecting not only evangelicalism but other churches as well. That is not surprising, since it is in accord with the prevailing climate of opinion. Some authors therefore predict that its features will become the “new normal” of the Christian church in the West. Is that disturbing? If so, what should be our response? Should the entire movement be rejected as apostate, as conservative commentators tend to think, or are some of its aspects worthwhile?

Jim Belcher, pastor of a PCA church in California, proposes a “conservative” answer to these questions. A one-time member of the movement, Belcher believes that the emerging church asks some legitimate questions that deserve the traditional church’s positive attention. He also, however, enumerates its shortcomings and relates that in the end, because of what he calls his “Calvinist misgivings,” he left the movement. He describes the weak and strong points of the emerging church in a recently published book, entitled Deep Church: A Third Way Between Emerging and Traditional (IVP, 2009), which is written as the record of his spiritual journey from a traditional evangelical church (Southern Baptist) via the emerging movement to his work as a PCA church planter and pastor. My review of this balanced and informative book can be found in our “collected papers” (see the sidebar); a direct link is here.

The Lost World of Genesis One: A Book Review by C. John Collins

2009-11-26T08:12:00.000-08:00

John Walton, Professor Old Testament at Wheaton College, published The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (InterVarsity, 2009), which has as its main thesis that Genesis 1 can be read as a liturgical inauguration ceremony of the cosmic temple. We are grateful that C. John Collins, Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, was found willing to review the book for us, as Collins has contributed significantly to the consideration of Genesis 1-4 from a Reformed perspective. His review is provided in our “collected papers” (see the sidebar); a direct link is here.

An online public lecture by Walton includes much of the book’s content. We welcome your responses to Walton’s book as well as to Collins’s critical review.

Teaching Evolution At Our Schools - Why And How

2009-10-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

On more than one occasion teachers have spoken with me about the way we are to teach evolution at our Reformed schools. The ministry of education makes evolution an obligatory subject, but there is more than one way of complying with the demand. Evolution can be taught and evaluated in a straightforward manner as a well-established biological theory that has weaknesses as well as strengths. It can also be taught and then explained away – and I am afraid this is done at some of our schools – as lie and deception, the devil’s own work. Related to this second approach is enlisting the help of certain videos and other material provided by young-earth-creationism. As one principal told me, these “creation-science” products are quite popular in our schools. Indeed, young-earth creationism is widely upheld as “Reformed doctrine.” Often, the principal wrote, schools use the material to make evolution look “stupid,” something we can chuckle about; which of course does little, he added, to prepare our students for what they will meet in their studies at secular institutions.

So far there had been little public discussion of the matter. On October 29, however, it was the topic of a workshop I gave at the annual convention of the Canadian Reformed Teachers Association Ontario, held in Fergus on October 29, 2009. In this workshop I recommended the first of the three approaches mentioned above. I made clear that I am not a Darwinist; that for me there are not only theological, but also scientific reasons to question the theory, and that I would give these reasons. At the same time I pointed out that there is strong evidence in favour of evolution and common descent and that we have to deal honestly with that evidence. It is the only way not only to understand the theory, but also to be able to criticize it (wherever such criticism is called for) in an honest, intelligent, and convincing manner.

The paper on which I based my workshop presentation can be found on this blog under “Collected Papers” (see side bar; direct link here). After a brief introduction as to WHY we should teach evolution in the manner suggested and after some remarks about the way we should read Genesis 1, I deal with the question HOW evolution should be taught. I begin here with an account of the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinism and then proceed with some of the questions that can be raised in connection with that evidence. Some final remarks deal with the nature of science, the subjective element in science, but also with the fact of science’s impressive track record.

In both the introduction and the conclusion of my paper I make clear that evolution ought to be taught only in the senior grades, but that in all grades we should cease condemning modern science (which indeed has had negative consequences but which in God’s providence has also brought us very many blessings) as the work of the powers of darkness. Instead our students should, from grade 1 onward, hear from us the central message of Genesis 1, namely that God is the all-powerful creator, that He was and is involved in every aspect of creation, and that His handiwork proclaims his glory. I further emphasize that our task is not completed by teaching the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism. We must also give attention to the use that is being made of this theory as a basis for an overall evolutionist and anti-Christian worldview. This implies, among other things, the urgent need to organize courses in apologetics or philosophy for our older students. Here they must be taught about ‘scientific’ atheism, about the social and economic abuse of evolutionary theories, and about the reductionism to which materialistic science has led.

I am well aware of the challenge we as Christians face is in connection with the theory of evolution. As again became clear during the discussion at the workshop, Christian teachers, pastors, and parents must make time to discuss the implications and repercussions of teaching evolution, and do so in a serious manner, in much detail, and with a willingness to listen to each other. I hope and pray that the workshop and the accompanying paper may initiate such discussions. In my opinion it is high time.

I should add that the paper is followed by a lengthy glossary, which should enable also those who are not acquainted with some of the scientific terms related to evolution and evolutionism to participate in the discussion.

Biblical Inerrancy

2009-10-09T12:06:00.000-07:00

Biblical inerrancy (the idea of an absolutely errorless Bible) found many adherents in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, especially in the North-American evangelical movement. The renewed stress on inerrancy at that time was largely a result of the spread of biblical criticism, the rise of secular science (including the theory of Darwinism), and the rapid secularization of American society. Although the belief in inerrancy was strongest among the conservative branches of North-American evangelicalism, which would soon form the so-called fundamentalist movement, the idea gained followers also among Reformed theologians, within and outside North America.

Dutch theologian Dr. Ad de Bruijne has pointed out (in Woord op Schrift, pp. 185f.), that among Reformed theologians in the Netherlands there have been two approaches to the issue in the past century or so. One group held, with American fundamentalism, that the Bible as the Word of God is by definition without errors in all its details. If errors or discrepancies are found, they must be blamed on the copyists; the original manuscripts (which we no longer possess!) were absolutely faultless. Other Reformed theologians criticized this theory as impossible of proof. They also asked why God would have allowed the perfect original manuscripts to disappear while preserving the imperfect copies with the discrepancies. These theologians continued to speak of biblical infallibility, a term that is not easy to define, but that has generally been interpreted as implying not factual inerrancy, but the Bible’s absolute trustworthiness in matters of doctrine, faith, and morals.

Although there were exceptions, the Reformed community as a whole has long continued to speak of an infallible Bible, rather than an inerrant one. This was true not only in Holland but also in Canada. In recent years, however, inerrantism is being affirmed by some Canadian Reformed churches and church leaders. We can read about this development in a paper by Tyler Vandergaag, titled “Inerrancy: A Reformed Doctrine?” (see under “collected papers” in the sidebar; direct link here). Tyler is a graduate student at Trinity Western University, where he is working on an M.A. in Biblical Studies, focusing specifically on Justin Martyr’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures. Currently, he teaches a Catechism class at the Langley Canadian Reformed Church, where he, his wife Keri and their son Jayden are members. In his paper Tyler analyzes the doctrine of inerrancy, summarizes its history, and comes with a variety of arguments to show that we would do well to abandon the term. Inerrantism, as he points out, leads to exegetical problems and is in conflict with the Reformed tradition about the place and function of Holy Scripture. Nowhere do the Reformed confessions use the word inerrancy.

Tyler’s paper is well-researched and very readable. In view of the doctrine’s spread among us, it is also timely. As Tyler points out, the term even occurs in the draft of an official church paper, namely in the preamble to the Proposed Joint Church Order (of the CanRC and the URC) that will be submitted to the Canadian Reformed Synod of 2010. It is time for a serious discussion on the matter. Tyler’s paper can serve as an excellent starting point.

Ken Ham and Reformed Perspective

2009-09-17T13:06:00.000-07:00

Many of our readers also read Reformed Perspective or are at least aware of it. It is a monthly magazine to which many members of the Canadian Reformed churches look to for guidance and leadership on matters of Christianity and culture. The following is a Letter to the Editor I submitted after receiving the September issue.

Recently, Reformed Perspective has been recommending books by Ken Ham. The latest is Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. According to Sarah Meerstra [“Nota Bene: News worth noting”, v. 28, n. 11 (September 2009), p. 5, under “Why young people leave the church”], it claims that “When children are taught to doubt the historical truth of the Genesis account...the entire authority of Scripture is questioned [and] young people come to question the truth of the Bible and its relevance for their lives.” Of course, Ham (a charismatic and dynamic young-earth creationist [YEC] evangelist) is referring to the notion that one must defend at all costs the YEC agenda which claims that Genesis 1 must be regarded as teaching the technical chronological details of our material origins. The standard rhetoric includes a reference to Psalm 11:3: “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The implication is that if we doubt their approach to Genesis 1, we might as well toss out the whole Bible.

It is well known in Christian higher education circles that creationism can indeed lead to a crisis in a young person’s life. However, YEC itself is the problem. Many who grow up with YEC and then in their college and university education begin to see its all-too-clear failures to grapple with the scientific evidences of an ancient creation are ill equipped to handle the tension, and dispense with YEC and along with it Biblical faith in its entirety, because YEC requires of its followers a particular interpretation of Genesis 1. There are even tragic cases of suicide triggered by this tension.

It should not be, though, that the truth of the Bible is questioned when scientific evidence is considered; it is instead the authority of leadership who promote YEC which should be questioned. Must we really tie ourselves to a particular way of linking Genesis 1 and science? Must we seek scientific evidence for what we think are the scientific details of the Genesis record? Why does the YEC approach have so much draw, even in our own Canadian Reformed circles, when we have instead a rich heritage of pursuing the careful analysis of the historical, textual, and cultural context of Scripture (including Genesis 1), relying on the redemptive historical hermeneutic approach, and letting Scripture interpret Scripture? Thankfully, many Reformed academics have written excellent books from a Reformed perspective which can help restore intellectual, scientific, and theological vitality, including C. John Collins, Vern Poythress, David Snoke, Tim Morris & Don Petcher, W. Robert Godfrey. It is to these that we must turn, not to authors like Ken Ham.

John Calvin and the Natural World

2009-08-21T20:49:00.000-07:00

Those of us who have the privilege of teaching science in a Christian college or university have to work hard at helping students see science from a Christian perspective. In this book review essay Dordt College physics professor Dr. John Zwart describes these experiences in working with students in his non-majors physical science class.

In addition to describing his work with scientifically uninitiated students, John also discusses Calvin’s knowledge of and thoughts about science. He reviews Davis Young’s recent book John Calvin and the Natural World (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), which examines what Calvin wrote about science.

This essay will appear in the September 2009 issue of the Dordt College publication Pro Rege but we have been given permission to post it ahead of time since it is relevant to our discussions and a helpful summary of Calvin's views.

Parting ways with Calvin?

2009-08-21T19:37:00.000-07:00

At last! A substantive critique of my paper on Creation Science and Scripture! Dr. John Byl, in his cleverly named blog, Bylogos (not to be confused with the website Biologos, which was set up by Francis Collins and which argues for theistic evolution), claims that I have misinterpreted the concept of the organic inspiration of Scripture and that I have misinterpreted Calvin. I have responded a bit to the first part on his blog but want to address his (and my) comments on Calvin on our own blog.

I’d like to thank John for pointing out Calvin’s comments on the goodness of creation in his commentary on Genesis 2:2, which I hadn’t noticed earlier. Here Calvin says, referring to the fact that the world was very good before the Fall but not anymore,

“It is subsequently that we shall find God saying, Let the earth bring forth thorns and briers, by which he intimates that the appearance of the earth should be different from what it had been in the beginning. But the explanation is at hand; many things which are now seen in the world are rather corruptions of it than any part of its proper furniture. For ever since man declined from his high original, it became necessary that the world should gradually degenerate from its nature. We must come to this conclusion respecting the existence of fleas, caterpillars, and other noxious insects. In all these, I say, there is some deformity of the world, which ought by no means to be regarded as in the order of nature, since it proceeds rather from the sin of man than from the hand of God. Truly these things were created by God, but by God as an avenger. In this place, however, Moses is not considering God as armed for the punishment of the sins of men; but as the Artificer, the Architect, the bountiful Father of a family, who has omitted nothing essential to the perfection of his edifice. At the present time, when we look upon the world corrupted, and as if degenerated from its original creation, let that expression of Paul recur to our mind, that the creature is liable to vanity, not willingly, but through our fault (Romans 8:20), and thus let us mourn, being admonished of our just condemnation.”

Clearly Calvin thinks that the nonhuman creation has fundamentally changed (deformed) from its original created state and that this change is due to man’s sin. The evidence for this change is “the existence of fleas, caterpillars, and other noxious insects.” While I sympathize with his view of fleas, which must have been much more of a pest in his day, I wouldn’t say the same about caterpillars, whose adult forms perform vital ecological functions in pollination. This raises the question of Calvin’s knowledge about science and the natural world. Davis Young has written a book about just that question (John Calvin and the Natural World (Lantham, MD: University Press of America, 2007), which is reviewed by J.W. Haas (in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith v. 59, n. 4 (2007), pp. 307-9 available online here ) and by Dordt College physics professor Dr. John Zwart (soon to be published by Pro Rege but available here. More on this review in a separate post).

I haven’t read the book yet but I understand that Calvin’s knowledge of biology was considerably less than of astronomy (which itself was largely Aristotelian). I think it’s safe to say though, that his view of the effects of the Fall on creation differ from mine, including the existence of carnivory before the Fall, which I affirm but Calvin denies.

When I look at the depictions of carnivory and predation in Scripture, I see no indication that this is a result of the Fall. Psalm 104:21 is an obvious example but so are the depictions of the fierceness of many creatures in Job 39-41. Nowhere do we read that such behavior is sinful, in fact the message to Job is that these are God’s works and we should not question him on things we do not understand.

Thus I do part ways with Calvin on his understanding of the effects of the Fall on creation, but I suspect his views would have been different if he were able to take a course in ecology, to see the importance of the food chain (or web), including carnivory, for the stability of ecosystems.

But how does Calvin respond when there is an apparent contradiction between science and Scripture? Since his knowledge of astronomy was better than that of biology, he saw the contradiction between the depiction of the firmament in Genesis 1 and what was known about the sky in his day and his response was that Genesis does not teach astronomy. I suspect his comments about the effects of the fall would be different and a little less simplistic if he had a better knowledge of biology.

But what does Paul mean in Romans 8:22 when he says that the whole creation groans awaiting redemption? A look around at our society and what we’ve done to our environment should make that clear. Genesis 3 shows how all of Adam’s relationships - with God, with Eve and with the ground - have been marred by the Fall. Adam had a sort of “reverse Midas touch” - everything he did (and everything we do) was marred with sin. So while the creation is not inherently defective as a result of the Fall, it certainly suffers from our sin.

Thus while I disagree with Calvin on the effects of the Fall, I don’t blame him for his lack of knowledge and consequent simplistic statements. In the same way God doesn’t blame us for our lack of knowledge when he reveals himself to us, but “lisps to us as little children” (Calvin’s words).

A Global Warming Primer

2009-08-17T10:02:00.001-07:00

Among members of the general public, and also in many corners of Christianity (including both evangelicalism broadly as well as the Canadian Reformed churches) there is much skepticism about global warming. This might be due to the democratization of knowledge, in which everyone has (or thinks they have) access to all the same information, and in which one can find apparently eminent proponents of every possible point of view. Scientists, specifically, are viewed by the public in a curiously bipolar way: awe and amazement on the one hand and disdain and dismissal on the other. Medical science, with its knowledge and techniques, is held in high esteem especially by those in need of diagnosis or treatment for themselves or their loved ones. Simultaneously, public immunization programmes (or sunscreen) are vilified by many as being conspiratorial, socialistic, and dangerous, especially if one can find a website authored by a “PhD” or “MD” highlighting the risks.

On global warming, everyone is an expert. One says, “Al Gore sure is smart; we’re doomed!” The other counters, “It was cold this summer; global warming is a hoax.” Instead of joining either bandwagon, the reformed academic ought to weigh evidence carefully. Even within our community there are scientists whose expertise we can tap, brothers and sisters whom we can trust, who are familiar with the scientific literature and who do not rely on the popular press. We are not all experts on every topic, but just as we expect ministers to know the most about Scripture, and farmers about agriculture, electricians about household wiring, practicing scientists can give leadership in interpreting scientific discoveries.

Since global warming is a culturally important topic, touching on issues from personal lifestyle to global politics, we present an article written for Reformed Academic by Rick Baartman, a physicist working at TRIUMF in Vancouver and a member of Maranatha Canadian Reformed Church in Surrey, BC. Rick served on the Brazil Mission Board (1992-1998), is a board member of the prison ministry M2W2, and also board member of the Geneva Society for Reformational Worldview Studies. He and his wife Sara have five adult children and three grandchildren. Rick has reviewed the primary scientific literature on global warming, and has put together a valuable popular piece which we invite our readers to engage fruitfully. It is available in our “collected articles” in the sidebar, entitled “A Global Warming Primer”. A direct link is here.

Cicada killers and the Fall

2009-08-08T08:11:00.000-07:00

The flower bed between our driveway and our home appears to be an attractive place for cicada-killers to make their burrows and this summer is no exception. For those people unfamiliar with cicada-killers, these are really large wasps which find a cicada in a tree, paralyze it by stinging, then carry it back to their underground burrows, where they lay an egg on it, which feeds upon the cicada as it grows and develops. If you’re interested in learning more about these wasps, check out this page.

These wasps have attracted my attention for several reasons. Firstly, they’re quite big and scary, even though they’re relatively harmless to humans. I’m told that we’re more likely to die from any chemicals we would use to try to control them than from the wasps themselves. These insects are interested in cicadas, not people. Still, any guests coming up our driveway will find it somewhat disconcerting to get out of the car amongst a dozen or so of these creatures flying around (and mating). I’m somewhat torn in deciding what to do with them. Ecologically, they do a good thing, which is to control the numbers of those noisy cicadas, but I just wish they would do their thing somewhere else besides along my driveway.

Secondly, I find their biology gruesome but fascinating. They know just where to sting the cicadas, so as not to kill them, but merely paralyze them. Dead cicadas would decay and grow mold, which is not good for the larvae. In addition, these insects are just barely strong enough to carry the cicadas back to their burrow, and it’s actually a funny sight to see them struggling with their enormous load, twice as big as they are. Female larvae grow bigger than males, so the mother needs to bury two cicadas for every female larva but just one for a male (The mother controls the sex of the offspring by deciding whether or not to fertilize the egg. Unfertilized eggs are male, just as in bees).

Thirdly, I’ve wondered about the theology of these wasps and their life cycle. If animal death is a result of the Fall, how did these creatures live beforehand? The developing larvae need a source of food, where would it have come from, if not from cicadas? Did the present system immediately evolve once Adam and Eve ate of the fruit? These are rhetorical questions of course because I believe these creatures behaved this way long before Adam and Eve ever roamed the earth.

What is the Creation Science response to the death of insects? It is generally claimed that insects are not nephesh i.e. having the breath of life, because insects lack lungs, so they could have died before the Fall (for example see the note at the bottom of this page). The fact that insects still use air, but through spiracles along the sides of their bodies, apparently doesn’t count as breathing. I find this distinction between creatures that have the breath of life and those that don’t somewhat arbitrary and have a hard time believing that someone as educated as Moses wouldn’t think that insects are alive.

Here again we see an example of Creation Science distorting the meaning of the Biblical text to suit their misconception that the Bible teaches science. On the contrary, I see cicada-killers as yet another animal that seeks its food from God (Psalm 104:21), in this case through cicadas.

The Waters Above the Firmament

2009-08-04T21:09:00.000-07:00

Below follows a guest post by Ben Vandergugten (B.A., Trinity Western; B.Ed., Simon Fraser) in which he introduces his eight-page article which we have published in our “collected papers” (see sidebar). Ben teaches elementary students at William of Orange Christian School in Surrey, B.C. He and his wife, Esther, with their two children, are members of the Canadian Reformed Church in Cloverdale. We thank Ben for his contribution, and welcome the engagement of our readers.

“So God made the expanse (or firmament, dome, vault) and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.” (Genesis 1:7) The interpretation of this text is straightforward, right? God separated the oceans, seas and lakes from the clouds above with an expanse of atmosphere. For a long time I didn’t give this reading a second thought. After all, it was plain and obvious. But this interpretation was not the obvious one until a few hundred years ago. It requires a scientific understanding of the atmosphere, as well as the sun, moon and stars (c.f. Genesis 1:16-18). It is likely that before the 16^th century the “firmament” was considered to be a solid structure by nearly all educated (and probably also uneducated) people in the West. It was certainly assumed to be solid by the Ancient Near Eastern peoples, including Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Canaanites. Since it was amongst these nations that the people of Israel grew into a nation, it would seem most probable that they would also share with them this concept of the firmament.

In an article entitled “The Waters Above the Firmament,” I argue that the “firmament” in Genesis 1 should be understood as a solid structure and that the waters above the firmament are a heavenly ocean, rather than clouds. I discuss some perceptions of the cosmos found in both Hebrew and early Christian texts that compare well with this interpretation. I also consider a small sample of Bible texts that seem to fit better with these concepts of a solid dome and a heavenly ocean. I believe this interpretation takes seriously the ancient cosmology of the day and is most consistent with the Biblical text. This article is not exhaustive, but I hope it will generate some discussion and further research. The implications for this interpretation are significant, but I leave that for you to consider and hopefully discuss on this blog. I have provided some links within the paper to aid in further research. For a more complete argument in favour of this interpretation, see the articles by Paul Seely that I have referenced in the footnotes.

I hope this paper will entice some fruitful discussion, or at least fruitful thinking.

Retreat for University and College Students

2009-07-29T14:31:00.000-07:00

Canadian Reformed students will likely have seen notices about the “Deroche College Retreat”. In case you haven’t, here is some information from the webpage. Please note that the word “College” here is meant in the general sense: any post-secondary educational institution. Also, I’ve been told by one of the organizers that, while the retreat specifically targets students of secular campuses, those attending Christian universities are welcome as well. I also understand that the registration deadline is August 8. I would highly recommend attending this event!

Here's the invitation, copied from www.derochecollegeretreat.com:

Dear Prospective Student:

The Reformed Bible College and the “Deroche Retreat” Reformed Conference Society of the Fraser Valley are pleased you have expressed an interest in attending the retreat: Heart, Soul and Mind: A Retreat for College and University Students. This stimulating event begins on Monday, Aug. 31st, and ends on Friday, Sept. 4th, 2009.

As Reformed Christian students attending secular colleges and universities, your faith will come under serious attack. This attack comes not only from the strong anti-Christian opinions held by professors and students and their non-Christian assumptions of the prevailing worldview, but also from the lifestyle exemplified and promoted on campus. As one person put it, “If you don’t consciously prepare for College/University, you should probably avoid it.”

We love to see Reformed youth not merely surviving, but genuinely thriving in the sometime hostile and/or challenging environment you may find yourself in at college/university. This retreat is deliberately designed to help you develop the tools and skills you need to be an effective Christian witness as a post-secondary student.

Our primary guest speaker, Dr. Ben Faber, comes highly recommended. He teaches at Redeemer University College, and is intimately familiar with the challenges young people face in our post-modern culture. He introduces his work at our retreat this way:

Confessionally-grounded, academically-sound, apologetically-oriented. This retreat invites students at secular colleges and universities to come together for three and a half days on the beautiful Deroche Retreat, to reflect on their higher education as an opportunity to engage the world with heart, soul and mind. The Bible studies, instructional sessions, recreational activities, evening devotions, and campfire fellowship will focus our collective attention on all aspects of life in college and university, from the philosophical to the practical. Thinking critically and creatively about our vocation as students, we will see what it means to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.” This is your heyday, these are your glory years, and this is your retreat.

We also are pleased Rev. R. Schouten, minister of the Aldergrove Canadian Reformed Church will be leading the Bible Study lessons each morning and Mark and Jaclyn Penninga from ARPA Canada will do a session on being actively involved on campus.

We look forward to you joining us for a week of growth and fellowship; may this event help you in your desire to live your life to God’s glory.

Nothing-Buttery

2009-07-27T08:51:00.000-07:00

Readers of Reformed Academic may be interested to know that I also contribute to another blog, by faculty at Trinity Western University. Below is a piece I wrote there a year ago, which is also relevant here, and so I am re-posting it here; I welcome your interaction.

One problem with blogging is that sometimes you have so much to say on a topic that you can’t reduce it to a few paragraphs… Which leads me to think about the very topic of reductionism, which I’ve been thinking about quite a bit lately. I’m not exactly sure where the following quote originates, but I’m told that one of our chemistry professors shows what reductionism is by saying, “Psychology is just biology, biology is just chemistry, chemistry is just physics, physics is just math, and math is just…hard.” Actually, I think the last part of this quote is due to one of our math profs. Another apt description is due to Donald MacKay, author of A Clock Work Image (InterVarsity, 1974), who calls such notions “nothing-buttery”. We encounter, nearly every day, the idea that “X” is nothing but “Y”:

A person is nothing but a collection of protoplasm.
A person is nothing but a pile of atoms.
Beethoven’s 5^th is nothing but vibrations in the air.
Love is nothing but chemistry.
A photograph is nothing but pixels on a screen.

Sometimes the words “nothing but” are left out, but the problem remains: it is supposed that “X” doesn’t really exist since science has shown that it’s actually just “Y”. Two of my main goals in teaching are to expose the problems with reductionism and to open students’ minds to the much broader perspective offered by a Christian worldview.

A few years ago, one of my students mentioned that TWU’s English Department has as its polemic motto, “The universe is made of stories, not of atoms.” This quote due to Muriel Rukeyser unfortunately remains reductionistic, because it’s not either/or: both are true. The universe is made of atoms, and it is made of stories. Both — and more — are needed to provide anything approaching a full description and explanation. It’s important for scientists to know that there is more to any phenomenon or event than the physical compositional story.

University education can often lead students into thinking that their particular area alone holds the true key to final knowledge; this was true in my case, until I discovered the “liberal arts and sciences” as taught at Trinity Western. I keep reminding my students that, unlike Ernest Rutherford’s quote that “In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting” (which remains hanging outside our lab as a conversation piece), each discipline considers just one aspect of the multi-faceted universe crafted by an amazing Creator as an integral whole. These aspects relate to one another in various ways, but no single discipline can claim to be the most fundamental or basic. It is both humiliating and empowering to know both that our work matters and that we need one another. Perhaps you recognize similarities with Romans 12:3-5 and I Corinthians 12!

For further reading, see my piece “A Physicist’s Reformed Critique of Nonreductive Physicalism and Emergence”, Pro Rege v. 33, n. 4 (June 2005) pp. 20-32 (available online here).

Book Review: The Shack

2009-07-24T10:42:00.000-07:00

As our introductory post indicates, this blog was set up to discuss and try to resolve difficulties that Christians may experience in their academic studies and projects. One way of meeting this goal is to draw attention to works by Christian scientists, apologists, and theologians who have addressed this kind of issue. We hope occasionally to review such books; we also intend to deal with publications that we believe Christians should be warned against. A case in point is Jitse van der Meer’s recent review of the Bible-critical work Meeting Jesus For the First Time, by Marcus Borg, a member of the notorious Jesus Seminar. The book with which we are introducing this thread, namely the recent bestseller The Shack, is on a rather different level. It is popularly written and offers no academic challenges, although it does offer theological ones. In any case, its popularity and often uncritical acceptance among believers suggests that a brief analysis may be called for. Comments on the initiative are invited.

Wm. Paul Young, The Shack: When Tragedy Confronts Eternity, first appeared in 2007. The copy I have in front of me states that the book is now “The #1 New York Times Bestseller,” with over 5 million copies in print. Although widely acclaimed by many Christians, it is a controversial book among orthodox believers. Some church members I have discussed it with recommend it highly, but others reject it as unbiblical and spiritually dangerous. The description “blasphemous” has even been used. Who is right? What is the book’s message?

First something about the story. The back cover gives the following summary of the book’s contents: “Mackenzie Allen Philip’s youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness. Four years later…Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend. Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack’s world forever.”

What he does find is a pleasant cottage situated in a beautiful natural landscape (symbolizing heaven? the new earth?). The cottage is inhabited by what are presented to us as human manifestations of the three Persons of the Trinity. They are a kind, motherly, beaming African-American woman (who is, paradoxically, referred to as “Papa”), a middle-aged carpenter, and a small breezy woman of Asian descent. There is some crude symbolism in this portrayal of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. One of the author’s aims is to challenge the reader’s “religious stereotypes,” and he obviously counts among these the idea that God is male and white and western (true, we are told later that He is not female either, and toward the end He is portrayed as male). Other apparent “stereotypes” are God’s holiness and transcendence. Young portrays the persons of the Trinity as ordinary human beings. In fact, we are told that with Christ’s incarnation the Father and the Spirit also “became fully human,” and even that the Father shared in the Son’s suffering and still bears the physical scars of the crucifixion. God’s humanity and humility are paramount throughout. Mack can converse with the Persons of the Trinity as their equal. He is even told that just as man must submit to God, so God submits to man, in order to draw him into the divine “circle of relationship.” And so Mack feels free to blame God for human suffering, to snap at Him, and to demand explanations. He does all this with impunity. God’s friendliness and willingness to explain Himself and to mollify His inquisitor never cease.

Much of the book’s appeal no doubt results from its political correctness, its emphasis on relationship, and its portrayal of God as non-judgmental, ever-kind, very human, non-transcendent. It is true that not all the book’s contents are of the same caliber. Good things are said about the cause of evil and of human suffering, about man’s error in insisting upon his autonomy, about human freedom and responsibility, divine grace, and forgiveness. Also biblical is the stress on the future restoration of all things – the fact that the believer’s ultimate destiny is not heaven but a renewed earth.

But these positive aspects do not make up for the negative ones. Much of the biblical message is ignored and God is portrayed as humans might like Him to be, not as He has revealed Himself. This is, I believe, a transgression of the second commandment. There are, as we have seen, additional theological errors – the portrayal of the Godhead in visible form (again a transgression of the second commandment), the teaching that the Father and the Spirit have assumed a human nature, and the ancient heresies of modalism and patripassionism (the Father’s sharing in the Son’s suffering and death). There are hints of universalism and also of Pelagianism – for example when Mack is told that God is fully reconciled to the world but that this is as much as He can do; it is up to mankind to accept the “new relationship” He offers.

More could be said, but this review is not meant to be exhaustive. I merely want to draw attention to the questionable message of a book that is widely read among Christians. For additional critical reviews I refer to one by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church, Seattle, and especially to that of Tim Challies, who wrote a lengthy, balanced, and thoroughly biblical analysis of The Shack. I further mention a recent article by the Rev. Wes Bredenhof [“Emergent: A Brief Introduction”, Clarion v. 58, n. 13 (19 June 2009) pp. 301-3], wherein, like Tim Challies, he relates the message of The Shack to that of the emergent church movement.

Scripture

2009-07-08T12:55:00.000-07:00

One of the goals of Reformed Academic is to discuss matters of Scripture interpretation in relation to other areas of scholarship. In the polarized climate of today this is very difficult if not impossible. Nevertheless, we cannot escape the call to give an account of what we believe and why we believe it in the context of contemporary culture. Specifically, we want to show that it is possible to combine a rigorous critique of various forms of Bible criticism with a thoughtful and open-minded consideration of Scripture interpretation in relation to various scholarly disciplines that aims to stay true to Scripture. I am offering a review of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg as a contribution to this goal of Reformed Academic. For the review, see “Marcus Borg: the Tragedy of Reaction” in our “collected papers” (in the sidebar) - direct link here.

Marcus Borg (1942- ) is an influential American biblical scholar and a widely read author. He is a member of the Bible critical Jesus Seminar, and is Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University. His works have been translated into nine languages. Borg is among the most influential voices in progressive Christianity. The review of Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg is not offered because it is timely. The book appeared in 1994. Rather it is offered to make the following points.

First, the review is intended as a contribution to the goal of Reformed Academic mentioned above. It starts with what is intended as a fair and non-evaluative description of the content of the book followed by an assessment.

Second, the assessment also contains a critique of Rudolph Bultmann. This is not only an indispensable context for the work of Marcus Borg, but also because Rudolph Bultmann may be considered as representative for the final phase in the development of higher biblical criticism. Thus Bultmann offers an opportunity to show the weaknesses of his work and of higher biblical criticism in general.

Third, the assessment describes how the development of higher biblical criticism was influenced by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant seen as a response to a deterministic interpretation of Newtonian physics. This offers an example of the complexity of the interaction between the interpretation of nature in science and the interpretation of Scripture.

Fourth, I hope it contributes to avoiding what I refer to in the title of the review as ‘the tragedy of reaction.’ The tragic nature of reaction is that it takes on precisely those features of its intended opponent that it was intended to reject.

Finally, this particular book was chosen because the writings of Marcus Borg are widely influential.

Young-Earth Creationism: A History

2009-06-27T11:58:00.000-07:00

How do we relate science and Scripture? If modern science gives a picture of the world and its origins that differs from a literal understanding of the biblical account, must we then automatically reject it? Historically, believers have not thought so. They have realized that, to speak with Calvin, the Bible is the “book of the unlearned” - it describes things as they appear to the common observer. And so, although the Bible speaks of a four-cornered and unmoving earth, Christians have accepted the scientific evidence that the earth is spherical and moving. True, there are still some who defend an earth-centred solar system, but they are exceptions. No orthodox church community supports such a view.

In recent decades there has been one exception to the general rule. It concerns the interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. Although science concludes that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, many conservative Christians hold that according to the Bible creation took place only 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. To believe otherwise, they insist, is to risk losing the entire Scripture. Meanwhile, although they reject much of modern science, many of them believe that scientific evidence in support of their position is important. They have therefore developed an alternative scientific approach, called creation science (or scientific creationism), which proves, they say, that a young-earth interpretation of Genesis is scientifically correct. This young-earth creationism has flourished mightily in the past three or four decades. Although certainly not every Christian accepts creation science, this is now the default position not only in conservative evangelical churches world-wide but also in Reformed ones.

Those who disagree are a minority, although a vocal one. The issue is rapidly becoming one of the most divisive ones among Bible-believing Christians - so much so, in fact, that church-related periodicals often prefer not to deal with it. The general impression is that arguments - whether biblical or scientific - do not convince in any case. This is probably true. But so long as young-earth creationism is assumed to be the one and only orthodox position, then consciences are bound, if not officially, then for all practical purposes. This creates a difficult climate for those who question or reject young-earth creationism. Especially vulnerable are students who are often well aware of the scientific arguments but are told that the scientific evidence, compelling as it may appear to them, must be rejected. Generally speaking discussions on the issue are not encouraged. Students often have to solve the problem on their own.

I realize that the issue is not easily resolved. I do want to propose, however, that we agree to accept the division, allow for the airing of divergent opinions, and stop labelling those who disagree with the dominant approach as heretical. I dare propose this because I have studied the history of the controversy and found that the kind of freedom I am asking for indeed existed in the past. Orthodox theologians, scientists and philosophers – Reformed, Presbyterians, and others – have defended theories of an older earth, and even some form of evolutionism, without being accused of heresy. The great divide came in the 1960s, with the rise and worldwide spread of scientific creationism. Within a few decades this initially Adventist and evangelical position replaced the traditional Reformed one, which henceforth was qualified as anti-biblical. In my article “Young-Earth Creationism: A History” (see “collected papers” in side-bar) I trace this development. I sincerely hope that the historical account will encourage a more nuanced attitude with respect to the interpretation of the creation account today. A direct link is here.

The article is divided into three parts. Part I deals with the period up to 1925 (the year of the American Scopes Trial); Part II describes the birth and worldwide spread of scientific creationism; and Part III traces the influence of creation science in Reformed churches. Special attention is given here to the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (liberated), the Canadian Reformed Churches, and the United Reformed Church of North America.

Intelligent Design

2009-06-22T12:04:00.000-07:00

Dennis Venema asked several questions regarding Intelligent Design. Since there is still much to discuss on the theology of common ancestry, it might be better to start a separate thread. I appreciate Dennis' questions and hope we can work out where we agree and where we don't.

Dennis asks, "I'll need to know what your definition of "design" is, as well as your definition of "scientifically." "

TJ: These are good questions. All of creation is designed and we can't distinguish between what is designed and what isn't. I admit I've seen that distinction in some ID writing but disagree with it. What I mean by design is that certain features may not be explained by the "laws" of science as we know them. This is not merely an argument from ignorance or a God of the gaps explanation, but is based on what we do know from science. An example is the origin of the first cell. We know the intracellular and extracellular environments are quite different and these chemical and electrical gradients are essential for cell function. Thus the arguments against cellularization are based on knowledge, not ignorance. Same thing with the reduction in entropy that occurs in the formation of macromolecules like DNA, RNA and protein.

DV: As for your "truly random" comment - I'm not sure what you mean, to be honest. I don't think anything is "truly random, even to God" if by that you mean it is beyond God's control.

TJ: I'm glad you feel that way but many of your TE colleagues will argue that evolution is truly random, even to God. God knows the end result but not the means by which we get there. An example is Simon Conway Morris, who holds that the evolutionary process has to end up with some kind of creature that seeks a relationship with God, but the details aren't known, even to God.

DV: As for antipathy towards an "interventionist" idea of God: if evidence were present that such a "discontinuous" event had occurred, I would be happy to weigh it and consider it. It is certainly within God's purview to "intervene" (if one can really call God interacting with His creation 'intervening' in any meaningful way). Nothing in biology that I have seen thus far makes me reach for the "miracle" category as of yet. Nothing I have read in the ID literature makes me reach for that category either.

TJ: Again, I appreciate your answer. Now we can debate the evidence, rather than presuppositions. Many TE's have claimed that it's only an incompetent God who needs to tinker with the evolutionary process because it wasn't designed right in the first place.

DV: To give you some more info on how I view ID, I see it as an argument from analogy: things in biology are analogous to things we know are designed (by people or animals); ergo, the biological entity is designed. Well, the strength of that argument depends on the strength of the analogy - I have yet to see a case where, in my view, the analogy holds up.

TJ: So you agree with the argument from analogy but haven't yet found a convincing example?

DV: The other line of argumentation I see in ID (Dembski's Explanatory Filter, for example) seems to me to be an argument from ignorance. You can't use Dembski's filter unless you have perfect knowledge of all "natural" mechanisms. I have also never seen Dembski actually use his filter and publish the results. Have you?

TJ: One initial comment about publishing: the names of Behe, Wells, Dembski et al. are anathema to the scientific community. They have tried to publish but their submissions aren't even reviewed. I personally think the Expelled movie was overdone but there's a lot of truth to it. So lack of publications doesn't mean anything. Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by needing a perfect knowledge of all "natural" mechanisms before you can claim design. Does science ever work that way? We may not invoke new concepts like emergence and self-organization to explain phenomena we can't explain.

DV: Another problem I have with the ID movement is that as it focuses on narrow examples (the flagellum, for example) it seems to dividing biology into "the miraculous bits God did" over against "the natural bits God wasn't involved in because 'Darwinism' can explain those." Well, I prefer to see God as the author and sustainer of the whole deal. In their zeal to "prove" a Designer, I think they're ignoring a big part of His design.

TJ: Agreed, but ID proper doesn't claim that some things are designed and others aren't. It merely claims that some parts cannot be explained by processes we know and understand. ID also doesn't claim to "prove" a designer. The word "proof" is only appropriate in mathematics and alcohol :-).

I hope this clears up some misconceptions so we can debate the evidence.

Studies of the Human Genome

2009-06-06T14:35:00.000-07:00

Due to continual advances in DNA sequencing technologies, we have recently witnessed an explosion in the amount of DNA sequence data and the emergence of the field of genomics. The amount of sequence information continues to grow exponentially. Although sequencing the human genome for the first time was a monumental task, it is now much easier to obtain and compare the sequences of entire genomes.

In addition to humans, many other organisms have been sequenced, which allows comparisons with each other and with the human genome. Comparisons of the human and chimpanzee genomes have aroused special interest because it has been shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes share over 98% of their DNA sequences.

This high degree of similarity has troubling implications for those who believe that the Bible teaches that humans and chimpanzees are separate creations. Todd Wood is such a person who is trained in genomics and has examined this data closely. Wood’s paper can be seen here.
Although the paper is three years old, the story will not have changed substantially, except that the chimpanzee sequence is now more complete.

Wood treats the data honestly and candidly. Since he rejects a priori the possibility of common ancestry between chimpanzees and humans, he investigates possible ways of accounting for the high degree of similarity, none of which are well developed.

We invite you to read this paper carefully and comment on it.

If you need clarification on a point he makes, that's fine too.

How much are Wood’s suggestions for reconciling these data worth investigating?

If common ancestry is the best explanation of the data, what are the theological implications?

How would you fit Adam and Eve into such a scenario?

Against Scientific Geocentrism

2009-06-04T11:24:00.000-07:00

In a recent comment, John van Popta cites, apparently favourably, the geocentrism of van der Kamp. I never did have the honour of meeting “Kampee” as he was apparently affectionately known. But for a short time about a dozen years ago, I was involved in what I thought was a private internet discussion on geocentrism (mostly critiquing it while seeking to understand and appreciate it), and you can actually still find what must have been the most favourable thing I said about it quoted in The Geocentric Bible (!):

“no physicist I know says that the earth in any absolute sense travels around the sun. Science today does not claim that there is an absolute reference frame in which the earth is moving.”

This is apparently the best thing any Ph.D. physicist has said which could be construed to be in favour of geocentrism, at least in terms of “reference frames”. (Unfortunately, I can no longer find my other comments from that discussion.) Einstein’s theory of general relativity allows one to show how measurements of space and time correspond between references frames which are moving (in fact accelerating) relative to one another, and eschews the concept of an absolute point or system of reference from which space and time ought to be measured. However, one should not assume that the instrumentalist view is implied by general relativity, or that geocentrism is thusly made tenable. In astronomy, one does indeed usually employ an earth-based coordinate system for reasons of history and convenience. But there are plenty of good observations which indicate that geocentrism is not the true state of affairs in the cosmos. Maintaining scientific geocentrism is possible only if we dispense with nearly every well-established physical principle: gravitation, force, mass, dynamics, energy, not to mention the other basic observations which validate heliocentrism (within the solar system) such as rotational dynamics, centre of mass, stellar parallax, Coriolis force (with its Foucault pendulum, counter-clockwise rotation of storms in the Northern hemisphere), nuclear fusion, neutrino oscillation, extra-solar planetary systems, seasonal anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background, etc., etc. Of course, one could be a philosophical antirealist, or fictionalist, and maintain that these are only appearances or useful constructs, but we have discussed – and will continue to do so, Lord willing – the problems of such a position in Reformed epistemology and ontology, with, in my view, the critical (or, as Broussard puts it, humble) realist position doing more justice to the reality of the creation and to God’s gift of rationality to His image bearers. My main point regarding reference frames is that Scripture’s speaking from the point of view of earth is not scientifically problematic, but neither is it a scientific claim any more than is our continued reference to such geocentric notions as sunsets.

Also, let me briefly unveil the Copernican myth to which van der Kamp and nearly everyone else has succumbed. This is the idea that Copernicus in proposing a heliocentric system dethroned the earth from its position at the Centre of the cosmos, and that this is a threat to the Scriptural idea that humanity is central in God’s plan of salvation. Having once been considered at the Centre, the earth is now relegated to being just one planet among many, and further developments put us orbiting around just one star out of many, in one galaxy among many, etc. However, it is important to note that according to the Greeks, the earth is evil, with hell being at its centre and the heavens being the place of perfection. Thus, far from demoting the earth, Copernicus actually exalted it to join the heavenly realms! This is discussed in Dennis Danielson, “The Great Copernican Cliché”, American Journal of Physics, v. 69, n. 10 (Oct. 2001), pp. 1029-35. Danielson is a member of a Reformed church, and an English professor at UBC studying historical literature on the cosmos, writing here in a physics journal, and so if you can obtain the article via your university or college library, all readers of this blog should find it accessible. In fact, modern astronomy suggests that not only is the earth not at the center, but that there is no centre, much like how there is no location on the surface of the earth which could rightfully claim such an honour; I consider this to be a superb poetical analogy of how once Jews claimed they had to worship in Jerusalem, but now God’s people worship anywhere in spirit and truth (see John 4:20-24).

Incidentally, earth’s placement, environment, and attributes remain particularly special in many ways; see Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Wesley Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2004) and Peter D. Ward & Donald Brown, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus Books, 2004).

My conclusion is that scientific geocentrism is neither taught in nor implied by Scripture, and there is every reason for the Christian to acknowledge the weight of evidence against it while no reason to suppose that this means earth and humanity is any less special in God’s eyes. After all, we are created in God’s image, and the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection took place on our home planet. And we can say with even more depth of understanding, in humility and awe, with David, “When I consider your heavens, …what is man that you are mindful of him…?” (Psalm 8.3-4, NIV)