Last night, in the beautiful home of an airline pilot, I sat
eating brats and chatting with several men decades older than me. While
slightly out of place, I’ve grown used to relating to men in their 50s and 60s
and I find myself fascinated by this generation.
While they complimented each other on the chili and
reminisced about their kids and grandkids and the deer they’d shot last fall,
the conversation turned slowly toward the state of the nation and how to live
as a Christian in our increasingly secularized world.
Instead of the flippant judgmentalism I often see in
American evangelicals, I saw an earnest concern on their faces as they spoke of
dangerous movements in politics, education, and theology. They were genuinely
worried for their children and grandchildren living in a post-Christian
society.
At one point, evolution came up and one by one, they soberly
discussed the evidence for a young earth and quietly told stories of children
who had walked away from the faith when presented with this “theory”. One man
turned to me and said, “What do you think, Nate? Do you see your generation
turning away from God over this issue?”
I swallowed hard.
“Well…” I began tenuously, wondering if this high-powered
group of guys would actually sit still long enough to hear my opinion. But
their eyes fixed on me quietly and widened slightly when I told them my
mother-in-law is an evangelical biology teacher who teaches evolution. “You
mean they force her to teach it?” one man cut in. “Well no…” I replied. “She
believes it. She’s a theistic evolutionist.” Slow nods around the table.
“I think,” I continued, “that what causes young Christians
to walk away from their faith is when Christian scientists are not careful in
presenting good science and research about evolution. It makes us feel like
Christians have something to hide. I think that does as much damage as anything
else…” More nods and the topic moved to politics.
As I think about it, what I really want to say to Christians
is this: The growth of secular humanism may seem alarming and threatening. And
yes, I think it is dangerous. But equally dangerous—equally alarming and
threatening—should be the rise of legalistic, moralistic, Christian fundamentalism.
I think bad experiences with the church and with a Christianity that is
inextricably married to culture are just as much a catalyst for young folks leaving
the church as anything Secular America can offer.
I think we often look at secularism as the “great Satan” and
legalism as a naughty little habit that mature Christians should overcome. But
it’s time to understand that Satan is just as insidious inside the church as outside and
the stuff we buy into as Christians becomes JUST as toxic spiritually as
atheism or humanism. Or let me say this for shock value: a church that
glorifies Christian values over Christ himself, that falls into hypocrisy, that
reduces Christianity to the judgmental pursuit of morality... This church is
more repugnant to God than a Pride Parade for gay abortion doctors. Dead
serious. Looking at Jesus, who he condemned and who he loved... that's the conclusion I come to.
I recommend a careful rethinking of our irreducible minimums.
What makes a person Christian? What’s the bottom line? I mean, beyond an
intellectual acceptance of Christ’s atonement, what does it look like to follow
Jesus? I think if we can answer this question thoughtfully and biblically, we’ll
see a lot of young people coming back to the church. In fact, I think THAT
question needs a heckuva lot more attention and debate than abortion, gay marriage, and
evolution put together. Just sayin’.
Nate, you are a good apologist. Appreciate your comment about the toxicity of legalism in the church. Also the need to courageously and intelligently tackle the issues we have with the culture. Listen to culture to understand its heart, then enter dialogue.
ReplyDeletethanks Nate. If we profess that God created then we need to be honest in our observation of his creation. And we must be careful to not slide into the heresy of promoting our predetermined beliefs. If our observation of God's originally good, though now polluted, creation does not match our ascribed interpretations, we are wise to look at our interpretations and ask if we are seeing rightly. And if not, we are wise to realign our interpretations as opposed to redefining what is properly observation. The church called Galileo a heretic and we discovered he observed the creators amazing work accurately (for his day). The church's response to his observation, which challenged their interpretation, was to protect their interpretation. This response is embarrassing to us today, but serves as a reminder of how dangerous dogmatic stances can be.
ReplyDeleteAgain, thanks for raising this for we stand at the same crossroads and we are in danger of promoting our beliefs at the expense of the Creator's glory and truth.
As Nate's mother-in-law, I guess I should add a comment here! I teach public high school biology and have the opportunity to "mentor" my students who sometimes arrive having been told by their religious leaders that I would be teaching them lies and would try to destroy their faith! I try to temper their suspicions by mentioning that I am married to a pastor and my parents were missionaries and seminary professors with advanced degrees. As a public educator I am free to inform them that I am a person of faith, but that I do not try to convert or indoctrinate my students to my particular religious beliefs. I do declare that it is my duty and responsibility as a science teacher to honestly present and explain the current and best explanations available about how the universe and the natural world works. Science is limited to what can be tested and observed with our five senses. Authentic science does not have the tools or "permission" to judge or test the non physical, or spiritual dimension. Most "arguments" are due to lack of knowledge of science and/or scripture. Nate refers to me as "evangelical", which to me is a calling to "share the good news" to my students who think they must choose between faith OR science, that it is possible for them to pursue science a way to explore creation, to discover the amazing ways "God did it". With that perspective, there is no reason to fear what science might uncover that on the surface can appear to conflict with deeply held beliefs not based on physical evidence. I like how Rick Ebber's explains that observations are real, not opinions or beliefs. Observations can be interpreted, and that is where disagreements can come in. Human interpretations of scripture are not infallible and do not necessarily represent "Gods thoughts and ways" as described by Isaiah.
ReplyDeleteI tell my students who believe in the Bible that Hebrew is a picture language, not a science text. Poetry is not taken in a physically literal sense, just as I am not considered to be dishonest when I say a "million people" were at the mall. Today at lunch a dozen of my science teacher colleagues just happened to be discussing how hard it is for some very religious students to accept biology the same way they would accept math or history. Today I added to that discussion my observation of how closely the Genesis description of creation is parallel to the modern scientific history of the universe and the evolution of life on earth. Astronomy has proven that there was a beginning, a great release of energy, light from darkness. That was not well received by Einstein, who had to admit there had to be a beginning! ("Big Bang" theory "agrees" with this Genesis account) Genesis also refers to primitive early earth that was "without form and void". My father who was deeply committed to scripture, always believed that creation of the universe and formation of the earth long preceded the appearance of modern human life. Modern scientific theory on the evolution of the planet concurs with a shapeless earth that would be too hot for liquid oceans. Heavy steam and clouds would cause the surface of the earth to be dark. Eventually earth would cool enough for oceans to form around land masses. Clouds could clear enough for sun to shine on the earth. Fossils indicate life started in the oceans long before it was on land. Genesis mentions "Let the waters bring forth" creatures, not that God created individual fish species, etc. "Let the earth bring forth" plants, animals etc. Again nature's record agrees with the sequence of life forms, as it does with the appearance of mankind as being last. With all the creation stories available from different cultures, it is amazing how parallel the Genesis account is to nature's physical record of events, if you allow for "days" to be periods of time. By the way, 24 hour days only refer to our planet's current time of rotation relative to the sun. In the past, this "time" would be different. If you are outside of our planet, earthy hours have no meaning. What time is it on Mars? Or if you are outside of our solar system, what is a year or a day?
ReplyDeleteTo wrap up my discussion, my "missionary calling" as a public school biology teacher is to enable struggling students to "keep the faith" while also daring to deeply, critically explore the realities of creation, while I continue to respect the boundaries between "church and state". I have been saddened to witness serious students of science declare they are abandoning their childhood faith because they were lied to by their religious teachers. (If their teachers were wrong about science, maybe they were wrong about God too.) I hope more evangelical churches will carefully consider how they educate their kids in matters of science and faith. I only have influence with about 170 kids a year!