Stumbling Around
The Great Debate is over now and as almost anyone could have predicted what the spectacle has produced is hardening in an already polarized field.
Let me say a few things that will probably surprise people who know me in both camps.
While I think children in American public education should be instructed in the current paradigm of biological science I am not in favor of a witch hunt attempting to exorcise the church or the American public of their biological thought crimes however religiously they may be motivated. There are competent hosts for the important conversation concerning how the Bible and science relate and that conversation should make its way through our communities with as much grace as possible and hopefully more light than heat.
I find one significant piece of evidence is almost always left out in these conversations usually about the positions of their own perceived “sides”. All of the positions on both sides are moving targets.
The church, its leaders and thinkers have throughout the centuries engaged these questions and offered a variety of answers. Augustine and ancient church father has their ideas. Calvin and the Reformers had their ideas. The Roman Catholic church and its lights have offered their takes. Theologians in the late 19th and early 20th century offered a variety of ideas. New ideas come out in books and blogs all the time. This is hardly “settled” doctrine for the church and I suspect it may never be.
Similarly science continues to provide us with answers and new insights. A good understanding of Thomas Kuhn’s important work is helpful here. Science is not simply a monolithic enterprise where we add knowledge like so many bricks to a tower. Different models unseat previous models. I’m not saying that current models will be found to be bankrupt. What I am saying is that science, like theology, is a very long term project and no one knows how new evidence prompts the overturn of some paradigms for others. There was great excitement when “The Big Bang” was discovered because it seemed to concord with the Christian notion that the universe had a beginning (even if the Big Bang lacked watery depths.)
What I advise is that we all continue to do our work. Theologians to work on the Bible. Scientists to do their science, and as Christians and non-Christians we continue to talk about what we’re learning, what we’re thinking and challenge each other to better learning and better thinking. As the Belgic Confession says we have two books, let’s keep reading them both and working on them both.
How Ham Hurts
What was on display this week were two showmen, one the proprietor of a website someone who wants to get into the theme park business. What only the smarter of the two understood was that this was a political spectacle the conclusion of which was determined long before the thing hit Youtube.
Scott Hoezee wrote a nice piece on how this event puts pastors in the middle. I think Ham does more than just put pastors in an awkward position on Creation/Science issues. As Phil Vischer, creator of VeggieTales notes in his blog what this debate did was reinforce shallow stereotypes about both sides to both bases. Vischer on one of his podcasts noted that Old Testament scholar John Walton of Wheaton college offered to “debate” Ken Ham but Ken Ham won’t touch it. Why not? Because Ham’s treatment of the Bible doesn’t hold up to scrutiny from even conservative evangelical Bible scholars.
What Ham does is reinforce what Christian Smith and others have called “Biblicism” which is a way of approaching the Bible that seems faithful but is in itself something that fails the test of the Bible itself. Reformed and Evangelicals believe that the Bible should teach us how to interpret itself and Biblicism fails this test.
Biblicism
Christian Smith, sociologist at Notre Dame wrote a pretty scathing treatment of “Biblicism” in his book The Bible Made Impossible, Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. This is how he defines it.
All that I write below is intended to reference the following definition. By “biblicism” I mean a particular theory about and style of using the Bible that is defined by a constellation of related assumptions and beliefs about the Bible’s nature, purpose, and function. That constellation is represented by ten assumptions or beliefs:
Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language.
Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.
Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible.
Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.
Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts.
Solo Scriptura: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch.
Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about right and wrong beliefs and behaviors.
Universal Applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.
Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches.
The prior nine assumptions and beliefs generate a tenth viewpoint that—although often not stated in explications of biblicist principles and beliefs by its advocates—also commonly characterizes the general biblicist outlook, particularly as it is received and practiced in popular circles:
Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects—including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.
Smith, Christian (2011-08-01). Bible Made Impossible, The: Moving from Biblicism to a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Kindle Locations 229-230). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Many of the points he presses here are important ones. While he continues to assert the authority of Scripture and the inspiration of the Bible he notes that when you get down to interpretation and practice the church has a long history of working with the Bible’s complexity and that facile, shallow approaches to the Bible hurts the church, its credibility and the witness of its members.
Many of the points he lists in his definition are actually over-simplification of historical doctrines of the church that have been misshapen in their attempt to be made into slogans or aphorisms. They lack the kind of nuance and complexity that keeps theologians busy.
Biblicism is really folk theology. It is the sloganization of complex theology into an idea with a handle that conceals the complexity beneath. Theology tends to plumb the depths of the complexity, Biblicism papers over it. It has the appearance of faithfulness, but faithfulness is ultimately the question of what you can rely upon, what will stand up to the test, and most of this doesn’t adequately address the complexity of the Bible or how it intersects with life.
Are you saying the Bible is only for Experts?
No. I believe the Reformation had it right that the Bible should be in the hands of believers and read for learning, support, comfort and edification. The Reformation also asserted that the church should train its clergy and that the readers of the Bible should be helped by the church to learn how to handle the Bible with the help of creeds, confessions and a host of other tools. It was the Geneva Bible and many other tools that helped many understand what they were reading. In the book of Acts God sends Philip to help the Ethiopian Eunuch understand what he is reading and after the resurrection Jesus opens the eyes of his followers so that they can better associate him with the Hebrew scriptures.
The church is full of people who have been brought into the church by direct Bible reading. I recently watched an interview with Rosaria Butterfield whose conversion story is quite dramatic.
My point is not to undermine faith in the Bible, it is to help us be better Bible readers and to better engage our contexts together. The church has long engaged believer and unbelievers on many of these issues and done some competently. If you want to find far more helpful and credible debate subscribe to the Veritas Forum on Youtube.
How We Believe What We Believe
Part of what both sides in these debates also often get wrong is the reality that we believe what we believe for far more complex reasons than simply lining up arguments in a book or debate. When you have the likes of Charles Templeton walking away from the faith and the likes of CS Lewis or Francis Collins coming to faith you should know that it isn’t just a matter of lining up evidence.
For many of us our beliefs find us. Christians have said the same for centuries. The church understands this as the Holy Spirit creating faith in our hearts. This doesn’t work to the exclusion of historical factors but rather through them.
I don’t expect non-Christians to buy this answer. However, evolutionary psychologists like Jonathan Haidt note that we are not in conscious control of many of the things we believe or the reason we imagine we believe. We believe what we believe and sometimes they change dramatically.
I frankly don’t think Ham or Nye did a service either to science or the church. There are many who are engaging these subjects in far more coherent ways that are more compelling and credible to both Christians and non-Christians alike. What they offered was a show. If you’re interested seek out better forums and better discussions.
Leadingchurch.com 
How Ham Hurts
Stumbling Around
The Great Debate is over now and as almost anyone could have predicted what the spectacle has produced is hardening in an already polarized field.
Let me say a few things that will probably surprise people who know me in both camps.
While I think children in American public education should be instructed in the current paradigm of biological science I am not in favor of a witch hunt attempting to exorcise the church or the American public of their biological thought crimes however religiously they may be motivated. There are competent hosts for the important conversation concerning how the Bible and science relate and that conversation should make its way through our communities with as much grace as possible and hopefully more light than heat.
I find one significant piece of evidence is almost always left out in these conversations usually about the positions of their own perceived “sides”. All of the positions on both sides are moving targets.
The church, its leaders and thinkers have throughout the centuries engaged these questions and offered a variety of answers. Augustine and ancient church father has their ideas. Calvin and the Reformers had their ideas. The Roman Catholic church and its lights have offered their takes. Theologians in the late 19th and early 20th century offered a variety of ideas. New ideas come out in books and blogs all the time. This is hardly “settled” doctrine for the church and I suspect it may never be.
Similarly science continues to provide us with answers and new insights. A good understanding of Thomas Kuhn’s important work is helpful here. Science is not simply a monolithic enterprise where we add knowledge like so many bricks to a tower. Different models unseat previous models. I’m not saying that current models will be found to be bankrupt. What I am saying is that science, like theology, is a very long term project and no one knows how new evidence prompts the overturn of some paradigms for others. There was great excitement when “The Big Bang” was discovered because it seemed to concord with the Christian notion that the universe had a beginning (even if the Big Bang lacked watery depths.)
What I advise is that we all continue to do our work. Theologians to work on the Bible. Scientists to do their science, and as Christians and non-Christians we continue to talk about what we’re learning, what we’re thinking and challenge each other to better learning and better thinking. As the Belgic Confession says we have two books, let’s keep reading them both and working on them both.
How Ham Hurts
What was on display this week were two showmen, one the proprietor of a website someone who wants to get into the theme park business. What only the smarter of the two understood was that this was a political spectacle the conclusion of which was determined long before the thing hit Youtube.
Scott Hoezee wrote a nice piece on how this event puts pastors in the middle. I think Ham does more than just put pastors in an awkward position on Creation/Science issues. As Phil Vischer, creator of VeggieTales notes in his blog what this debate did was reinforce shallow stereotypes about both sides to both bases. Vischer on one of his podcasts noted that Old Testament scholar John Walton of Wheaton college offered to “debate” Ken Ham but Ken Ham won’t touch it. Why not? Because Ham’s treatment of the Bible doesn’t hold up to scrutiny from even conservative evangelical Bible scholars.
What Ham does is reinforce what Christian Smith and others have called “Biblicism” which is a way of approaching the Bible that seems faithful but is in itself something that fails the test of the Bible itself. Reformed and Evangelicals believe that the Bible should teach us how to interpret itself and Biblicism fails this test.
Biblicism
Christian Smith, sociologist at Notre Dame wrote a pretty scathing treatment of “Biblicism” in his book The Bible Made Impossible, Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. This is how he defines it.
Many of the points he presses here are important ones. While he continues to assert the authority of Scripture and the inspiration of the Bible he notes that when you get down to interpretation and practice the church has a long history of working with the Bible’s complexity and that facile, shallow approaches to the Bible hurts the church, its credibility and the witness of its members.
Many of the points he lists in his definition are actually over-simplification of historical doctrines of the church that have been misshapen in their attempt to be made into slogans or aphorisms. They lack the kind of nuance and complexity that keeps theologians busy.
Biblicism is really folk theology. It is the sloganization of complex theology into an idea with a handle that conceals the complexity beneath. Theology tends to plumb the depths of the complexity, Biblicism papers over it. It has the appearance of faithfulness, but faithfulness is ultimately the question of what you can rely upon, what will stand up to the test, and most of this doesn’t adequately address the complexity of the Bible or how it intersects with life.
Are you saying the Bible is only for Experts?
No. I believe the Reformation had it right that the Bible should be in the hands of believers and read for learning, support, comfort and edification. The Reformation also asserted that the church should train its clergy and that the readers of the Bible should be helped by the church to learn how to handle the Bible with the help of creeds, confessions and a host of other tools. It was the Geneva Bible and many other tools that helped many understand what they were reading. In the book of Acts God sends Philip to help the Ethiopian Eunuch understand what he is reading and after the resurrection Jesus opens the eyes of his followers so that they can better associate him with the Hebrew scriptures.
The church is full of people who have been brought into the church by direct Bible reading. I recently watched an interview with Rosaria Butterfield whose conversion story is quite dramatic.
My point is not to undermine faith in the Bible, it is to help us be better Bible readers and to better engage our contexts together. The church has long engaged believer and unbelievers on many of these issues and done some competently. If you want to find far more helpful and credible debate subscribe to the Veritas Forum on Youtube.
How We Believe What We Believe
Part of what both sides in these debates also often get wrong is the reality that we believe what we believe for far more complex reasons than simply lining up arguments in a book or debate. When you have the likes of Charles Templeton walking away from the faith and the likes of CS Lewis or Francis Collins coming to faith you should know that it isn’t just a matter of lining up evidence.
For many of us our beliefs find us. Christians have said the same for centuries. The church understands this as the Holy Spirit creating faith in our hearts. This doesn’t work to the exclusion of historical factors but rather through them.
I don’t expect non-Christians to buy this answer. However, evolutionary psychologists like Jonathan Haidt note that we are not in conscious control of many of the things we believe or the reason we imagine we believe. We believe what we believe and sometimes they change dramatically.
I frankly don’t think Ham or Nye did a service either to science or the church. There are many who are engaging these subjects in far more coherent ways that are more compelling and credible to both Christians and non-Christians alike. What they offered was a show. If you’re interested seek out better forums and better discussions.
Share this:
Related
About PaulVK
Husband, Father of 5, Pastor