I have recently engaged in several conversations regarding the way Asbury practices communication. Generally, we are talking about things like event announcements through traditional media such as a website, magazine, postcards, etc.
On the other hand, there are people in the church who are beginning to question alternative forms of communication, namely social networking. As I've been thinking about this, I've come to realize why the church has been hesitant to adopt these "new" forms of communication. This trouble essentially comes down to the way the church has understood the strategy of communication. The church's communication strategy is as follows:
1. Pulpit- this is where the majority of substantive communication occurs. Things like vision, identity, and purpose are established through the pulpit.
2. Event announcements- this is the real bulk of where we spend our money as a church. We want to let people know how they can get involved in an event or program because we believe that Christian discipleship will occur at this level.
The problem to adapting to new forms of communication is really a struggle to understand the place of the pulpit. The real beauty of something like Twitter, for instance, is not so much that it has the ability to announce events (which it does), but really in the way that it intersects daily life. This intersection with daily life is really about thought process paradigm shifts. So, in some ways Twitter becomes the place where you are going to influence how people think about the world, how people interact with others, and how people even view themselves. For a church to engage in these emerging forms of communication is not a matter of being "relevant," "trendy," or "cool" it is really about interacting with the way people are thinking about and experiencing life.
If this is true, Twitter in some ways is a new pulpit; Facebook is a new "hospital bed" (the place pastoral care happens). Twitter, in some ways, is the place where you shape vision, identity, and purpose. Essentially, this is a matter of being incarnational. I am going to speak the Good News in the ways that actually intersect life, the ways people experience their daily life. Twitter is a way for the church to proclaim Gospel, but only if we too can begin to have a paradigm shift ourselves.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
GBCS
I'll throw out a disclaimer from the get-go: I am no fan of the General Boards in the United Methodist Church. That said, I can't believe the action of the General Board of Church and Society in the past few weeks.
Here is a quick polity lesson in the United Methodist Church. The UMC is ruled by the "Book of Discipline." The BOD outlines all decisions at every level of the UMC from a local church all the way to the national/international levels. The BOD is only altered every four years by a legislative body called the General Conference. The GC is made of both lay and clergy delegates from every Annual Conference. Methodists describe themselves as "connectional." Local churches connect with other local churches and form an Annual Conference. The Annual Conference then does work at a higher level than an individual local church can do. Nationally, Annual Conferences connect with other Annual Conferences and form General Boards. The General Boards only have authority to enact what the General Conference has said, and the GC only exists for 10 days every four years.
That said, the General Board of Church and Society is one such General Board that is represents the Annual Conferences, which represent the local churches. The GBCS has come out with a big endorsement of the new stimulus plan b/c they think the stimulus plan will help the poor.
Three questions:
1. Have they actually read the stimulus plan and then given enough time to debate the actual impact these policies will have on the poor? I can't imagine they have. The thing is something like 1100 pages long! No, instead the GBCS is more concerned with courting the new President.
2. Why are we hitching are cart to a governmental plan? Do we think that the transformation we seek in society is going to come from an federal economic plan? Really?
3. Why are they speaking w/o the authority of the General Conference? They are making statements that are simply not true for a great many United Methodists. This is not to say that I am opposed to the plan, but I am not going to attach the hope found in the Good News to a plan the federal government is proposing. I even voted for this President, and I can tell you that the GBCS is not speaking for me.
This issue of the GBCS hoping for systemic change through federal legislation is just a poorly conceived idea, but it is the backbone of this General Board. But why would Christians be looking for the government as a means for the spread of God's kingdom? The GBCS is essentially the same as the Christian Coalition at this point, just different ideologies. Why do these Christian groups place their hope in the government for systemic change? For instance, if we ban gay marriage are we really making more disciples of Jesus? If we endorse the stimulus plan are we really making more disciples of Jesus?
The only reason I can possibly fathom why these groups put their hope in government is that they don't trust that the Holy Spirit can actually transform people and bring about real change in society. The only evidence I see in history of real Christian transformation is when the church is not concerned chiefly with the state but is invested in people, especially the poor. Lets get rid of these Constantinian ideas and trust in the fact that Christ overcame death, he overcame Caesar (government) and he is the only way our world will be transformed.
The Underfunded Church
Yesterday Tom Harrison preached an outstanding sermon on how the church is under performing because she is underfunded.
Here is the link: http://www.asburytulsa.org/sermons/archives.html
I lead a study last night on the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, "You cannot serve both God and money." The word serve is the Greek root of liturgy: you cannot serve/worship both God and money. Thinking through my life and asking some tough questions about my spending habits I am left wondering how in my life I am either serving and worshiping God or serving and worshiping money. I tithe and try to make generosity a daily rule in my life (unless it comes to food- I hate sharing food! I would just assume buy you a whole sandwich than give you a bite from mine).
For the first time in my adult life I feel that I am starting to make positive changes in my finances that transcend my tithe. It used to be that because I tithed I assumed I was not worshiping and serving money. But now, Abby and I are working our way out of debt enough that we have seen how our lives have been spent in service of money instead of having money serve us and ultimately serve God.
I've been experiencing this change through a budget process. Now, I've always had a budget but I've rarely kept to a budget. It was just too restricting. In the past year or so, we've actually been keeping to our budget which means that at times we don't have money to eat out again or buy new clothes or go out of town. In this way, it is restricting. However, we've also paid off enough debt that we have more money to give and to save and invest in things that honor God. I don't make a lot of money, but I'm seeing that even with the small amount of money I make I can actually make a pretty big impact financially for the kingdom. Its just a matter of me learning to live responsibly in all of my life. The key to me living according to a budget is simple: contentment. Am I content with what God has given me? Am I content both when I am in plenty and when I am in want? For me, the evidence of contentment is if I'm living below my means.
If I can continue to grow in contentment and continue to make my money serve me then I get excited about thinking about what I can fund for the kingdom. The church does not have to be underfunded, I can make a difference with my salary as it is now. I can make a difference that changes lives, brings justice, and spread the kingdom of God.
Here is the link: http://www.asburytulsa.org/sermons/archives.html
I lead a study last night on the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, "You cannot serve both God and money." The word serve is the Greek root of liturgy: you cannot serve/worship both God and money. Thinking through my life and asking some tough questions about my spending habits I am left wondering how in my life I am either serving and worshiping God or serving and worshiping money. I tithe and try to make generosity a daily rule in my life (unless it comes to food- I hate sharing food! I would just assume buy you a whole sandwich than give you a bite from mine).
For the first time in my adult life I feel that I am starting to make positive changes in my finances that transcend my tithe. It used to be that because I tithed I assumed I was not worshiping and serving money. But now, Abby and I are working our way out of debt enough that we have seen how our lives have been spent in service of money instead of having money serve us and ultimately serve God.
I've been experiencing this change through a budget process. Now, I've always had a budget but I've rarely kept to a budget. It was just too restricting. In the past year or so, we've actually been keeping to our budget which means that at times we don't have money to eat out again or buy new clothes or go out of town. In this way, it is restricting. However, we've also paid off enough debt that we have more money to give and to save and invest in things that honor God. I don't make a lot of money, but I'm seeing that even with the small amount of money I make I can actually make a pretty big impact financially for the kingdom. Its just a matter of me learning to live responsibly in all of my life. The key to me living according to a budget is simple: contentment. Am I content with what God has given me? Am I content both when I am in plenty and when I am in want? For me, the evidence of contentment is if I'm living below my means.
If I can continue to grow in contentment and continue to make my money serve me then I get excited about thinking about what I can fund for the kingdom. The church does not have to be underfunded, I can make a difference with my salary as it is now. I can make a difference that changes lives, brings justice, and spread the kingdom of God.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Office- thoughts on why it sucks!
To begin, I've been a huge fan of The Office. I've seen them all, most of the webisodes, and even most of the deleted scenes. I own the first three seasons of the show and love those seasons. However, I have been majorly disappointed in the show in the past two years and can pinpoint one event that was the beginning of the end: casino night when Jim kissed Pam.
I remember that night clearly. I know that most people loved it because of the tension building all season, but when it happened I looked over at my friends sitting on the couch and announced the obvious, "this isn't funny. The Office is supposed to be funny. This just isn't funny!" What I was announcing at the time was the beginning of the end, but I did not have the insight to predict this problem.
Here's the genius of the show: office life is absurd! I work in a church office and I can still say that office life is absurd. You spend hours and hours around these people and yet barely know them. You get glimpses into their lives by what they put up on their walls or the kind of clothes they wear or the conversations that you might have with them, but for the most part you have office type relationships: awkward conversations at the copier, questions on expense reports, exchanged emails void of personality, and the occasional conversation about the weekend.
The first two seasons of The Office highlighted this absurdity with genius. Michael Scott was the one character who didn't seem to get that office friends are not really your friends. They are who you work with and then you don't spend your free time with them. Now, church office work is different, but serving on a large church staff there is some serious truth to that. I will never spend time with some of the staff at Asbury, and that is fine. I will pass them in the halls and say hello and try to think of something else to saw while we both realize that we don't really know anything about each other except for what we do.
Jim kissed Pam. We saw more of just a glimpse into their personal lives at that point, which is all an office mate might get. We saw into the depths of their feelings. We saw a part of them that they hadn't shown anyone else. We saw beyond their shallow office self, and saw what they really desired and hoped for- things you would never really see in your officemates.
Now the show didn't unravel all at once. Season 3 was still pretty good, but it was getting increasingly personal. The saving grace in season 3 was the downsizing and the mixing of new officemates that we didn't yet know and getting a glimpse into their lives. Season 4 and 5 have all been all about personal relationships, not office relationships. Where has the absurdity of office life gone?
Jenna Fischer in an interview on NPR said that when she auditioned for the show she showed no personality. Her audition was a "job interview" in character for a receptionist job. She gave one word answers and appeared very disintersted. Hence, Pam. Work Pam is exactly like this. She hates her job, is engaged but you get the feeling that he is a loser, and is bored in life. All of this you get pieced together through work Pam. I have no idea what real Pam is like. However, now there is no work Pam. She is gone. And I haven't laughed at her character since work Pam disappered.
If you watch season one of The Office it is just like the Brittish version. Maybe season 6 needs to be just like season 4 of the Brittish version as well: cancelled.
I remember that night clearly. I know that most people loved it because of the tension building all season, but when it happened I looked over at my friends sitting on the couch and announced the obvious, "this isn't funny. The Office is supposed to be funny. This just isn't funny!" What I was announcing at the time was the beginning of the end, but I did not have the insight to predict this problem.
Here's the genius of the show: office life is absurd! I work in a church office and I can still say that office life is absurd. You spend hours and hours around these people and yet barely know them. You get glimpses into their lives by what they put up on their walls or the kind of clothes they wear or the conversations that you might have with them, but for the most part you have office type relationships: awkward conversations at the copier, questions on expense reports, exchanged emails void of personality, and the occasional conversation about the weekend.
The first two seasons of The Office highlighted this absurdity with genius. Michael Scott was the one character who didn't seem to get that office friends are not really your friends. They are who you work with and then you don't spend your free time with them. Now, church office work is different, but serving on a large church staff there is some serious truth to that. I will never spend time with some of the staff at Asbury, and that is fine. I will pass them in the halls and say hello and try to think of something else to saw while we both realize that we don't really know anything about each other except for what we do.
Jim kissed Pam. We saw more of just a glimpse into their personal lives at that point, which is all an office mate might get. We saw into the depths of their feelings. We saw a part of them that they hadn't shown anyone else. We saw beyond their shallow office self, and saw what they really desired and hoped for- things you would never really see in your officemates.
Now the show didn't unravel all at once. Season 3 was still pretty good, but it was getting increasingly personal. The saving grace in season 3 was the downsizing and the mixing of new officemates that we didn't yet know and getting a glimpse into their lives. Season 4 and 5 have all been all about personal relationships, not office relationships. Where has the absurdity of office life gone?
Jenna Fischer in an interview on NPR said that when she auditioned for the show she showed no personality. Her audition was a "job interview" in character for a receptionist job. She gave one word answers and appeared very disintersted. Hence, Pam. Work Pam is exactly like this. She hates her job, is engaged but you get the feeling that he is a loser, and is bored in life. All of this you get pieced together through work Pam. I have no idea what real Pam is like. However, now there is no work Pam. She is gone. And I haven't laughed at her character since work Pam disappered.
If you watch season one of The Office it is just like the Brittish version. Maybe season 6 needs to be just like season 4 of the Brittish version as well: cancelled.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Virtue of Secrecy
I've been spending time in the Sermon on the Mount for the past few weeks, partly because I'm teaching on this in a small group and a Sunday morning community, and partly because I've been challenged personally by this Sermon.
I'm now in chapter 6, which opens with a discussion on "acts of righteousness." Other ways of saying this might be helpful: spiritual disciplines, or the Wesleyan vocabulary of means of grace. There are three "acts of righteousness" specifically mentioned: giving (specifically to the poor), prayer, and fasting. These acts are clearly separated from the next session on money and the Kingdom because these three acts carry a common construction formula: "when you...do not be like the hypocrites who..." and then "your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
The hypocrites are the antithesis of the disciples behavior in this prayer. The disciples are told specifically three times to not be like them. I'm ok with this statement, after all who wants to be a hypocrite, right? The problem is that when I think of a hypocrite I usually think of someone who says one thing but actually does another. An example would be someone who says to give, but then actually does not give; or someone who says to pray, but then actually does not pray; or someone who says to fast, but actually does not fast. In this sense, I can get behind why we are not supposed to be like the hypocrites. This is the classic argument of why some don't get involved in the church.
An interesting twist on the hypocrites though is that this is not their role. They are not the people who say one thing and then do the opposite. The hypocrites here are people who actually do the action they say they are doing, they just say it a bit too much. This is where I start to get confused. What is hypocritical about saying you give as long as you actually give? So here is what that tells me, the virtue in these "acts of righteousness," lets use giving for instance, is not giving, but the secrecy in giving. Jesus is not so interested in the fact that someone gave. In fact, he seems to say that if you go around boasting, then you shouldn't have even given. That is crazy to me because I would think naturally that the virtue is the giving. As long as someone gave, then we are good. Afterall the poor still received their food. I hear this from time to time when people say to me "I guess I could give to the church, but its not like I make very much. Asbury has people who make 7 or 8 figures, what is my tithe in relation to that?" If you are asking that question then you are radically missing the point, at least according to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is not interested in the effectiveness of the gift; Jesus is interested in faithfulness. The effect gift is the hypocrites, who give a lot, and then tell of their great generosity. The faithful gift is the gift that is probably not nearly as much but done in a way that doesn't point back to the giver. Jesus would rather have less money if it was secret.
I don't think this is to say that the virtue here is secrecy, but rather the motivation behind the act is everything. And this is in totally keeping with chapter 5, adultery is lust in the heart (motivation), murder is what happens in the heart (motivation). Chapter 5 concluded with these words, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." In other words, be like God in our heart, which will show up in the way that you practice your acts of righteousness/spiritual disciplines/means of grace.
I'm now in chapter 6, which opens with a discussion on "acts of righteousness." Other ways of saying this might be helpful: spiritual disciplines, or the Wesleyan vocabulary of means of grace. There are three "acts of righteousness" specifically mentioned: giving (specifically to the poor), prayer, and fasting. These acts are clearly separated from the next session on money and the Kingdom because these three acts carry a common construction formula: "when you...do not be like the hypocrites who..." and then "your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
The hypocrites are the antithesis of the disciples behavior in this prayer. The disciples are told specifically three times to not be like them. I'm ok with this statement, after all who wants to be a hypocrite, right? The problem is that when I think of a hypocrite I usually think of someone who says one thing but actually does another. An example would be someone who says to give, but then actually does not give; or someone who says to pray, but then actually does not pray; or someone who says to fast, but actually does not fast. In this sense, I can get behind why we are not supposed to be like the hypocrites. This is the classic argument of why some don't get involved in the church.
An interesting twist on the hypocrites though is that this is not their role. They are not the people who say one thing and then do the opposite. The hypocrites here are people who actually do the action they say they are doing, they just say it a bit too much. This is where I start to get confused. What is hypocritical about saying you give as long as you actually give? So here is what that tells me, the virtue in these "acts of righteousness," lets use giving for instance, is not giving, but the secrecy in giving. Jesus is not so interested in the fact that someone gave. In fact, he seems to say that if you go around boasting, then you shouldn't have even given. That is crazy to me because I would think naturally that the virtue is the giving. As long as someone gave, then we are good. Afterall the poor still received their food. I hear this from time to time when people say to me "I guess I could give to the church, but its not like I make very much. Asbury has people who make 7 or 8 figures, what is my tithe in relation to that?" If you are asking that question then you are radically missing the point, at least according to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is not interested in the effectiveness of the gift; Jesus is interested in faithfulness. The effect gift is the hypocrites, who give a lot, and then tell of their great generosity. The faithful gift is the gift that is probably not nearly as much but done in a way that doesn't point back to the giver. Jesus would rather have less money if it was secret.
I don't think this is to say that the virtue here is secrecy, but rather the motivation behind the act is everything. And this is in totally keeping with chapter 5, adultery is lust in the heart (motivation), murder is what happens in the heart (motivation). Chapter 5 concluded with these words, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." In other words, be like God in our heart, which will show up in the way that you practice your acts of righteousness/spiritual disciplines/means of grace.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Witness
I've recently been in conversation with some people regarding a lecture series at the University of Oklahoma celebrating the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "Origin of the Species." This person, like many people, are upset by their line of speakers the University is bringing in to discuss Darwin's contributions to science and the world. The main headache is the speaker Richard Dawkins. In no way do I agree with Dawkins. His message is extremely dangerous.
For years, I've argued that theology and evolutionary science can easily co-exist as long as each sees its own proper place. Evolutionary science is not asking the why or the who question; theology is not asking the how question. However, Dawkins preaches a gospel of evolutionary biology and that is troubling because he is going well beyond the bounds of this discipline that is supposing a theory and not only giving evolution "fact" claims, he is making truth claims through evolution. Very dangerous.
What is the proper response to something like this? As part of a large, fairly influential church in Oklahoma is it our place to stand up and say something? Should we protest this event? How do we express our disagreement with this event generally, and Dawkins specifically?
I struggle with this for one major reason. What is the outcome of us engaging the University in this event? I've been told that we must be sure to have a public voice and influence as a church, because it is when we begin to lose respect in the public forum, we begin to lose our influence over culture and thus lose our ability to evangelize. I guess I can see that point, except that I don't know that I've ever seen the church with any influence in the public sector. I've seen the church think she has influence in the public forum, but not really. I've seen the Council of Bishops (UMC) send letters to congressional leaders and the President on certain issues in hopes of social justice in the world. I've seen people in the religious right elect their candidates in hope of passing moral reform. I've seen Christians fight tooth and nail to get creationism in textbooks, restrict abortions, and keep gays out everything. Why do we do this kind of stuff? What is it that we are hoping to attain? If people are more moral will that bring them closer to Jesus? If we ban gay marriage, will our ability to bring people to a personal experience with Jesus go away? If the University of Oklahoma allows Dawkins to present, will people just turn their back on Christ? I understand that it could happen, but if people are abandoning their faith so easily then we have a bigger problem on our hands. We haven't taught the Scripture faithfully, we haven't allowed people to come face to face with Jesus, the Holy Spirit is not guiding their lives. Personally, I don't care to make the world a little more moral through activism, or to prop up a modernistic worldview that is minimally biblical in hopes that it will increase evangelistic activity. I'm interested in proclaiming Christ, and Christ alone. We've thought that if the world would only believe a little bit more of the Christian message, then that will bring them closer to Jesus. We've sold biblical ideas over a relationship with Christ.
So lets pretend we lose our ability to influence the cultural life of America. Why is that synonymous with losing our ability to bring people to Christ? It wasn't until Constantine that the church had any public voice, and it looks like she was at her best without the public voice. She was true to what she believed. She didn't water down her message to fit in and "make sense" to everyone. She preached a crucified Lord who rose from the grave. She did this without influence, without voice, without power, and from that position she changed the culture of the Empire. But she did it through the salvation of people who began to live in this ecclesia that rejected the theology of Empire in order to follow the Suffering Savior.
To me, as long as we continue this Constantinian myth of a Christian state and try to move our message from the lives of individuals into the public sphere, then we will continue to lose voice, power, influence, and effectiveness. Let's return to the peculiarity of our message. The message that is so strange and peculiar that it causes us to rethink the values we've been taught, the values of power and polotics. Lets stop trying to make the world a little more moral and instead work and pray to bring people to know Jesus.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Creationism and Inspiration
I had a conversation this week about creationism being taught in public schools. I smugly said in the course of the conversation, "I would be upset, like confront the superintendent upset, if my child came home with a science textbook that mentioned creationism." Now I was clearly going for a shock factor - "But, you're a pastor!"- kind of shock factor. I was flaunting my liberal enlightenment, and afterward I was immediately regretful of the statement, not because I didn't believe that- because I would be upset- but because really this person was not debating what Christians should think in terms of evolution vs. creation, but really an understanding of revelation and the inspiration of the Bible.
I hate it when people say things like, "I believe in evolution;" or conversely, "I don't believe in evolution...I believe in the Bible." I hate that statement because there is a major confusion that both evolutionists and creationists have tried to get us all to buy into. That is, that evolution is something to believe in. That kind of language reeks of faith/theology/philosophy, of which evolution in its true form is not. To say "I believe in evolution" in the way it is usually said is to automatically compare it to language of faith, as in "I believe in Jesus." Here is where the problem arises, to say that you believe in evolution is to assert that you think it is a reality that will order how you think about the world. Evolution becomes your matrix for how you understand the world, and at that point evolution is no longer science, it is theology. It is asking the who and they why question, which is not part of the scientific method. Now, for sure, many have made evolution out to be a systematic theology, which is frightening, and I would be very upset if my child came home with a text book asserting evolution as anything but scientific theory. Because once it becomes more than scientific theory, we find ourselves engrossed in materialism, which leads no where good.
Conversely, when Christians say that they don't believe in evolution they believe in God, they are automatically giving evolution a voice evolution as a scientific theory should never have. A scientific theory is not meant to answer questions of meaning and existence. A scientific theory is simply a way of understanding how things may have happened. If evolution is understood as a scientific theory and not as an object of faith, then this battle between faith and science should be substantially less violent. However, both sides like to position evolution as a faith system because then it polarizes the other side and all of a sudden you have a controversy and you can recruit people to your side of the argument.
When Christians give evolution the standing of a faith system they are also dramatically reducing what it means to have an inspired Scripture. Some Christians use the word "inerrant" to describe what it means for the Bible to be inspired. Generally, what they mean is that the Bible is true (as in factual) in anything it says. This gives rise to the ridiculous idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs are mythical. They then look for "scientific" evidence to back up their irrational claims. It is interesting that at this point science is not the great evil it is when scientists claim evolution as a dominant theory. But, if only they can find a shred of something that looks like scientific backing for their claims, such as a dinosaur footprint next to a human footprint then they are all of a sudden justified in their faith. By the way, the footprint argument is a true argument based in the "Creation Science Museum" in Glen Rose, Texas.
Once you have appealed to science to back up your claim in the way the earth was created, what have you reduced the Bible to? A reference book! The Bible at this point is about fact, not truth. The Bible is about how, not who and why. The brilliant N.T. Wright says,
"The Bible isn't there simply to be an accurate reference point for people who want to look things up and be sure they've got them right. It is there to equip God's people to carry forward his purposes of new covenant and new creation. It is there to enable people to work for justice, to sustain their spirituality as they do so, to create and enhance relationships at every level, and to produce that new creation which will have about it something of the beauty of God himself. The Bible isn't like an accurate description of how a car is made. It's more like the mechanic who helps you fix it, the garage attendant who refuels it, and the guide who helps you fix it, the guide who tells you how to get where you're going. And where you're going is to make God's new creation happen in the world, not simply to find your own way unscathed through the old creation."
I hate it when people say things like, "I believe in evolution;" or conversely, "I don't believe in evolution...I believe in the Bible." I hate that statement because there is a major confusion that both evolutionists and creationists have tried to get us all to buy into. That is, that evolution is something to believe in. That kind of language reeks of faith/theology/philosophy, of which evolution in its true form is not. To say "I believe in evolution" in the way it is usually said is to automatically compare it to language of faith, as in "I believe in Jesus." Here is where the problem arises, to say that you believe in evolution is to assert that you think it is a reality that will order how you think about the world. Evolution becomes your matrix for how you understand the world, and at that point evolution is no longer science, it is theology. It is asking the who and they why question, which is not part of the scientific method. Now, for sure, many have made evolution out to be a systematic theology, which is frightening, and I would be very upset if my child came home with a text book asserting evolution as anything but scientific theory. Because once it becomes more than scientific theory, we find ourselves engrossed in materialism, which leads no where good.
Conversely, when Christians say that they don't believe in evolution they believe in God, they are automatically giving evolution a voice evolution as a scientific theory should never have. A scientific theory is not meant to answer questions of meaning and existence. A scientific theory is simply a way of understanding how things may have happened. If evolution is understood as a scientific theory and not as an object of faith, then this battle between faith and science should be substantially less violent. However, both sides like to position evolution as a faith system because then it polarizes the other side and all of a sudden you have a controversy and you can recruit people to your side of the argument.
When Christians give evolution the standing of a faith system they are also dramatically reducing what it means to have an inspired Scripture. Some Christians use the word "inerrant" to describe what it means for the Bible to be inspired. Generally, what they mean is that the Bible is true (as in factual) in anything it says. This gives rise to the ridiculous idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs are mythical. They then look for "scientific" evidence to back up their irrational claims. It is interesting that at this point science is not the great evil it is when scientists claim evolution as a dominant theory. But, if only they can find a shred of something that looks like scientific backing for their claims, such as a dinosaur footprint next to a human footprint then they are all of a sudden justified in their faith. By the way, the footprint argument is a true argument based in the "Creation Science Museum" in Glen Rose, Texas.
Once you have appealed to science to back up your claim in the way the earth was created, what have you reduced the Bible to? A reference book! The Bible at this point is about fact, not truth. The Bible is about how, not who and why. The brilliant N.T. Wright says,
"The Bible isn't there simply to be an accurate reference point for people who want to look things up and be sure they've got them right. It is there to equip God's people to carry forward his purposes of new covenant and new creation. It is there to enable people to work for justice, to sustain their spirituality as they do so, to create and enhance relationships at every level, and to produce that new creation which will have about it something of the beauty of God himself. The Bible isn't like an accurate description of how a car is made. It's more like the mechanic who helps you fix it, the garage attendant who refuels it, and the guide who helps you fix it, the guide who tells you how to get where you're going. And where you're going is to make God's new creation happen in the world, not simply to find your own way unscathed through the old creation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
