|
Foundry United Rev. |
|
|
“Reading the Bible after Sunday, September 13,
2009 |
|
|
2 Corinthians 4: 7-18
Rev. |
A I don’t
think the reason for this is that six out of 10 Americans are intellectually
slow. I don’t think the reason for this is that three out of four
church-goers are ignorant. I think
the reason many church-goers don’t accept evolution is because they think
they have to choose between the Bible and evolution and, when they have been
in trouble in life, reading the Bible has helped them more than reading The
Origin of the Species. Many
church-goers think that accepting the idea of evolution would be disloyal to
the God who has sustained them during the hardest times in their lives. When
they have been in trouble, it has not helped them all that much to think:
“Well, I guess this is all part of the survival of the fittest.” If
Christians think they have to pick between Jesus and Darwin, they choose
Jesus. I have a certain amount of sympathy for this. If I had to make the
choice I’d probably choose as well. The
problem is assuming that this is the choice we have to make – to have to
choose between the Bible and evolution or God and This is
what Christian Century writer Amy Frykholm thinks. “We
may not have grasped all the nuances of the scientific debate,” she says,
“but we have concluded that evolutionary science is good science and
therefore must be compatible with good theology.…We believe that [evolution
and] natural selection [are] evidently part of God’s method of shaping the natural
world.” [2] We who
are educated mainline Christians often deal with the tension between the
Bible and science by saying the Bible is not a science textbook, and it is
true that the Bible is not a science textbook. But to say only this could be
misleading. To say the Bible is not a science textbook does not mean that the
biblical writers did not care about what we today call science. The biblical
writers were using the best scientific information available to them at the
time. They were using the best thinking available to them about the nature of
reality and the way the world worked. At the
time the Genesis creation accounts were written, the best thinking being done
about cosmology was being done in Babylon, so the Genesis creation accounts
are based on Babylonian theories of cosmology. We would call the Babylonian
theories pre-scientific, I suppose, but the Babylonian ideas about cosmology
were the best reasoned thinking based on the observation they were able to do
at the time. The biblical writers did not disregard the accepted ideas about
the nature of the world and creation of their time. It is
not like the biblical writers did not care about the way the world worked or
about the workings of nature and the universe. It is not like they ignored
what they could observe through their senses or the philosophical ways of
trying to understand the world of their times. The
biblical writers would have loved to be able to observe the universe through
the Hubble telescope. The biblical writers would have loved to read physics,
they would have loved to know about the Big Bang and evolution, and it would
have influenced the way they wrote the Bible. If they
were here today I think they would say, “Don’t be willfully ignorant.” I
think they would say, “We were limited by what we could know in our time.
With the information you have available to you, you should be able to
understand what we were trying to understand ever better than we could.
Develop the insights we had in light of the information you have. Do not
cling to our limitations. Do not confuse the clay jar for the treasure.” The
Bible has two great revelatory events. These two events define and shape
everything else. The Bible is basically the oral traditions and thinking and
writings of a community of people trying to figure out the implications of
these two events, and they used the best philosophical thinking and
pre-science available to them at the time to figure it out as best they
could. The
first great event was the exodus of a slave people from The
revelation In the
exodus Israel got a glimpse of what they came to believe was the deepest
intention of nature and history – that slaves should be free, that every
person should be able to live with dignity and respect…out of which was born
Israel’s commitment to justice and equality and education and truth and all
the other values biblical religion represents. The
writers of scripture would not say: stop thinking at the place in history where
we stopped. They would say take the revelation we have received in the exodus
– that God wants slaves to be free – and engage with the best knowledge of
your time in figuring out the implications of this for the way you should
live. The
second great revelatory event was the life, death and resurrection of Jesus –
the life of Jesus and the church’s experience of the resurrected Christ in
their midst as a community after his crucifixion. Jesus – in his lifetime and
as the risen Christ in their midst after his crucifixion – showed them the
heart of God. It showed them all they needed to know about the heart of God. The New
Testament is an attempt to take the exodus revelation and all the thinking
that had been done about it over the centuries and the new revelation about
the heart of God in Jesus Christ and to begin to work out the implications of
both of these for the way we might live in the world. The New
Testament writers used the best information available to them, the best
pre-science of their time, the best philosophical thinking of their time, to
try to figure out and articulate the truth they had discovered in the story
of Jesus Christ and the experience of the risen Christ in their midst.
The New
Testament writers knew that there was more they did not know than what they
did. “We see through a glass darkly,” Paul wrote. “We have this treasure in
clay jars,” he wrote. But
none of the New Testament writers were anti-learning. They were not
anti-philosophy except when philosophy became a substitute for love. Then
they believed philosophy was being misused, not that philosophy itself was
bad. So I
believe that It
wasn’t just But I want
to suggest our response ought to be what the biblical writers’ response would
have been: “The idea of natural selection is fascinating. Let’s see how it
might inform our basic revelation that slaves are meant to be free and that
Jesus Christ shows us the heart of God.” The
biblical writers would have said: “If they seem to be in conflict, it’s a
potentially creative tension. Let’s struggle with that conflict because truth
is always born out of labor.” Do you
know that the entire Bible is written in parables? We know that Jesus taught
using parables but the entire Bible is written in parables. The exodus story
is a parable. Jesus’ life, not just his teachings, Jesus’ life is a parable. Why is
the Bible written in parables? Because what the writers of the Bible are
trying to communicate cannot be communicated in any other way. Because the
truth the Bible is trying to communicate is already inside you. But the truth
inside us is the hardest truth to find. It is also the riskiest truth.
Because it is truth that we can’t merely grasp. It is truth that we have to
allow to grasp us. We
misread the Bible so often because we are looking for ideas or rules or
objective truth when the Bible is trying to lead us to a truth that is
already inside us but that we resist allowing it to find us. Christianity
is an eastern religion and the Bible is an eastern book. When we
stop trying to find proofs inside the Bible and let the Bible lead us to a
truth that wants to find us, then the Bible will have served its purpose. This is
why I am grateful to Darwin and the biblical literary scholars of his day and
the Feuerbach, Marx and Freud and the entire enlightenment. They help reopen
the Bible to us as a path toward truth rather than a final answer that stops
our inquiry and growth. I agree
with Amy Frykholm: “We may not have grasped all the nuances of the scientific
debate, but we have concluded that evolutionary science is good science and
therefore must be compatible with good theology.…We believe that [evolution
and] natural selection [are] evidently part of God’s method of shaping the
natural world.” That’s
where I am at. Amy Frykholm admits she hasn’t figured it all out yet: “I, for
one, do most of my thinking about science out of one mental box and my
thinking about religion out of another,” she writes. “While I think
the contents of the two boxes are compatible, I rarely try to work out the
terms of their relationship.” [italics mine] “Perhaps
that’s because the content of the two boxes are, when mixed, still
combustible,” she concludes.[3] Part of
the reason three out of four church-goers don’t want to talk about evolution
is because it is combustible and we go to church to feel safe and cuddled and
not to grow because we don’t feel secure in the world because we don’t
believe really in the resurrection. But if we believed in the
resurrection, the idea of evolution would be intriguing, not intimidating. The
interesting thing about clay jars is that there is no way to have wine
without them. There is no wine without something to hold it in. The clay jars
both hold and hide the treasure. This is the nature of parables. Like clay
jars they both hold and hide the treasure. The
Bible both holds and hides the wine. Almost
every time we confuse the clay jar and the treasure we end up using the Bible
repressively. We use it to defend patriarchy or racism or homophobia. Almost
every time we confuse the clay jar and the treasure we end up using it to
stop the movement of the A new
book just published this year by Adrian Desmond and James Moore Darwin’s
Sacred Cause studies Darwin’s personal papers and notes and even the
scribbling in the margins of the books he read and comes to the conclusion
that Darwin’s compulsion to discover the ancestry of humanity was motivated
partly by his hatred of slavery.[4] Slavery was one of the clay jars
defended by many of its proponents as “biblical” and “natural,” and Darwin
believed natural selection undermined the legitimacy of slavery that natural
and biblical theologies were sometimes used to justify. A
fascinating book by Keith Thomson Before Darwin: Reconciling God and
Nature explores the debate about evolution for the 150 years before It may
well be that There
is inspiration here for the struggles of our time…obviously the struggle to
protect the integrity of science and the academy from those who would corrupt
them for ideological purposes, but also the continuing struggle against
patriarchy, the struggle against racism, the struggle against poverty and
economic injustice, the struggle for gay and lesbian inclusion and equality. Ironically
those who believe the truth of the Bible – those who believe the truths
revealed in the exodus and in Jesus Christ – those who believe the
fundamental message of the Bible – are the ones who are not afraid of the
discoveries of science. God loves freedom. God wants freedom for you and me
and everyone. God loves freedom for God. God wants to be free from the clay
jars of our narrow minds. www.foundryumc.org |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] Frank Newport,
“On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution,” at http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx.
[2] Amy Frykholm,
“God in Evolution: The Nature of Divine Power,” Christian Century (Feb 12,
2008), 20+
[3] Amy Frykholm,
“God in Evolution: The Nature of Divine Power,” Christian Century (Feb 12,
2008), 20+
[4] Adrain Desmond
and James Moore, Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped
Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009). See
also Christopher Benfry, “Charles Darwin, Abolitionist,” The New York Times
Sunday Book Review, Jan. 29, 2009.
[5]Keith Thomson Before
J. David Pleins
suggests that one of the most significant discoveries in Thomson’s book is that
“Paley feared evolution because he feared social change..” See Pleins, “Before