From the Rev. Dr. Fritz Ritsch, pastor of St. Stephen Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth, comes this gem of an op ed (Star-Telegram.com).
The debate over teaching evolution in schools has a lot to do with science, but not biology.
Look instead to archaeology, anthropology, and mostly to literary and historical criticism — the tools modern scholarship uses to interpret the Bible.
The application of scientific method to holy writ has raised doubts about scriptural infallibility. Those who want to teach students “the weaknesses” of evolution hope, like good lawyers, to raise enough doubts that creationism looks credible. They fear that if creationism isn’t credible, then their literal reading of Scripture isn’t credible, either — and neither is their faith.
They’re right. But what’s needed is not faulty science. Believers need a new way to assert the truths of biblical faith without turning off our brains in the process.
Fundamental to the question of origins is the purpose of the Bible. He continues:
Scripture’s area of expertise is revelation — that which can’t be explained in physical terms. Revelation delves into matters of “the spirit,” the invisible, the reality that humans would never completely understand unless it was revealed.
The creation stories of Genesis are a case in point. The authors weren’t interested in describing the literal creation, but in making transcendent points about God, creation and human nature.
You don’t need to be a creationist to believe that God created all things; that God made them good; that God made humanity in God’s image; and that there is something rebellious and egocentric in human nature.
The details of the stories are carefully crafted; every word is fraught with meaning. Jews and Christians study these words carefully. We want to get them right. We believe that these words are inspired; they are the word of God. But these brilliant details are not facts. The fact that humanity evolved, contrary to the biblical creation story, does not make Genesis less true.
Ritsch gives an excellent description on the nature and origin of Scripture, emphasizing the resultant importance of humility in our interpretation.
Like the created order, Scripture didn’t emerge fully formed. Both scholarship and history show that the Bible evolved. The Torah, the first five books of the Bible, is the work of at least four editors over a period of hundreds of years. Likewise, the New Testament represents more than 100 years of writing that was not finalized until almost 300 years after Jesus’ crucifixion.
Our Scriptures evolved through a very human process of reflection and editing, spiced by spirited disagreement. The Bible intentionally comprises differing views and theologies. It was a “big tent” compromise, a “middle ground” encompassing a wide variety of early Christian sects and views, uniting them over a few essential beliefs without expunging the qualities that made each unique. To claim that God was engaged in such an “evolutionary” process is surely a hopeful sign that compromise affirms faith.
Admittedly, Judeo-Christian faith is strongly grounded in history, so factual conflicts can be challenging. That’s why God gave us minds, and why believers assert that we are saved by grace.
There’s room to be wrong — a fact that often gets lost in debates about doctrine. But the essential truths of our faith — the resurrection of Christ for Christians, for instance, or God’s appearance to Moses in the Burning Bush — will never be proved or disproved by scientific method.
This reminds me of Polkinghorne’s sentiments recounted on Steve Martin’s blog: “As a scientist I am often struck by theologians’ persistent fear of getting it wrong. [In science] a willingness to explore ideas which might prove mistaken, or in need of revision, is a necessary price of scientific progress. One would have thought that the intrinsic difficulty in doing theology would encourage a similar intrepidity.”
Make sure you check out Ritsch’s full article.
Related posts:
- My position on the origins question Josh recently commented on another thread, “I want to hear your explanation of the origin of life on earth. I have heard the positions you...
- Why the debate over creationism matters Recently I have been involved in a couple conversations with folks who aren’t really “informed” (I use the term loosely) creationists but have been hounded...
- Mohler on theistic evolution In a recent post on his popular blog, Al Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a predictable take on the origins...
- You can’t just ignore the evolution debate I generally like World magazine. Oh, there’s plenty I disagree with in every issue, but one thing editor Marvin Olasky and his team just...
- Progressive revelation I’ve not got much to say about this, but please check out Cliff Martin’s post that describes his thinking on the unchanging nature of God,...
Loading ...