Another theological crisis?

Are we who affirm biblical orthodoxy on the brink of a theological crisis that will change everything, similar to the Copernican revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries? Some scholars think so.

Here’s some minimal background. Copernicus was a physicist of the 16th century who  developed a theory that the earth orbited the sun. Orthodoxy of that time, religious and scientific, insisted that the earth was the center of creation. This was considered true because casual observation seemed to indicate that other heavenly bodies moved around the earth, the theories of Aristotle and because God’s own son came to Earth and not to some other planet. To affirm the theory of Copernicus was declared heresy.

Galileo was a disciple of Copernicus and a good Italian Catholic. With his telescope, he confirmed, to his mind, Copernicus’ theory and his writing soon had him before an inquisition which insisted that he recant his teaching or face terrible consequences in this life and the next. Galileo did recant, though insincerely, and lived in house arrest for the remainder of his life. However, pre-Copernican understandings of astronomy were mortally wounded. The Church was forced to re-fashion its theology to fit scientific evidence—no minor thing.

Our “crisis” has to do with the origins of mankind. A recent cover story in Christianity Today boiled down a broad debate among evangelicals regarding efforts to make scientific theories compatible with traditional biblical interpretation, or maybe the other way around.

Studies in geology, anthropology, statistics, genetics and other sciences have supposedly made the belief that our species began with just one man and one woman, uniquely created by God, nearly impossible to maintain. Theologians rightly see that a drastic re-write of our doctrine of man will affect interpretation of every other doctrine in the Bible. Now, something true is never incompatible with the Bible as it is rightly understood. The fact that our theology might need to be reconsidered is not in itself an argument against competing theories. Neither should the claims of one religion, Materialism, send us scurrying just because its priesthood calls us stupid.

When it comes to reconstructing the ancient past or speculating on even the near future’s climate, the science is definitely not settled. The blunders of the past 100 years make most of these claims of certainty laughable. If the science was settled, we’d be in an ice age at this moment, but it wouldn’t matter because the world population would have overwhelmed the planet years ago—only forest creatures would be here to see the snow drifts in south Texas. If evolutionary science was settled, one of our ancestors would be the tooth of a pig (Nebraska Man), another, the star of the Scopes trial, would be a poorly accomplished fraud that stood up to scientific inquiry for over 40 years (Piltdown Man). Scientists are mortal, fallen men who begin with a worldview and tend to interpret to that view, just like you and I do. From this layman’s seat, it seems that professionals in the “hard sciences” are hesitant to admit these mortal weaknesses, just like you and I are.  

Naming the current discussion of origins “Copernican” is a tactic only one voice in the debate uses. It is meant to scare up images of religious censors running scared when the river of truth bursts through the dam of superstition they have fabricated. Those who do not believe all of what science currently affirms are foolish and even wicked in this scenario. But this revolution is not Copernican, it might not even be revolutionary. The cosmology of the 17th century church was not drawn much from the Bible, neither did the Roman Church of that day even pretend that biblical authority was the standard by which their teachings were judged. Catholic theology of this era was a mix of human authority (councils and popes), tradition, and political pragmatism. For a scientific theory to modify this was a big deal but the clear teachings of the Bible were not challenged in this revolution.

Our current debate supposes something more basically contrary to the gospel. If 10,000 or more human-like creatures walked out of the forests at around the same time millions of years ago, rather than just one man and just one woman, our current understanding of sin and redemption is changed. The tribe of humans is supposed to have gradually become  rebellious to God as they evolved the curiosity, avarice, and pride described in Genesis 3—just like I heard in seminary 30 years ago. The “one man” or “first Adam” of Romans 5 becomes figurative and contrasted with the literal “second Adam” who redeems us. The plainly spoken “through one man sin entered the world and all died” becomes puzzling, less impactful. Some suggest, unhelpfully, that Paul clearly believed what he wrote and merely spoke according to the understanding of the ancients. No problem, right? I guess not, if you have a theory of inspiration that leaves room for either a God who deceives us or a book that is not all that God breathed.

Again, I’m not saying that the Materialist theories of origins are wrong because they make hash of biblical theology. I am saying that facile reinterpretations of the gospel will not make peace between Materialism and Christianity. Overwhelmingly, the scientific elite is non-theistic. Most of the self-described Christians within this fellowship belong to traditions that stopped believing the Bible decades ago. They couldn’t care less about any reconciliation between evangelical theology and scientific theories. Those who care the most are evangelicals who fear that we’ll become even more irrelevant than we are.

This is nothing new. Some Christian scholars have been enamored with Naturalism or Materialism from more than a century past. Nineteenth century liberalism began with a bias against any actual intervention of God in the human timeline and fudged the exegetical data to get the outcome they desire. That’s where we get nonsense about a burning bush that was merely brightly colored or millions of the Hebrew children wading across the ankle deep Red Sea or Jesus only appearing to walk on the water when he was merely near the water, or a Jesus who is only resurrected in our hearts but not necessarily in the flesh. Smart guys are always trying to help us out by explaining the illusions of Scripture that only appear to be miracles.

There is a philosophy and theology behind everything we study. One does not need a PhD. in anthropology to judge whether or not an anthropologist has proven his case. In fact, it’s not necessary that one be literate to be rightly skeptical when his fellow, more educated man claims to have no predetermined view regarding the ultimate issues of life. Did you need an advanced degree in theology to know that Harold Camping was wrong to predict the end of the world on May 21? His arguments were silly and his track record poor at these predictions. To most of us, nothing about the man passed the smell test. But he was certain and he called nearly all of us nasty names. Apparently that is not a compelling argument.

So I won’t apologize for my amateur status regarding physics and biology. A man who assumes that God is not there will not see him in the cosmos. A researcher who begins with the certainty that life is made up of only chemicals and electricity will see things that fill him with wonder but no understanding. His theories will stand or fall, edify or enrage his fellows, and maybe earn a government grant, but they will not convince his neighbors that we came from nowhere, are here for no purpose, and will return to nothing.

There are other scientists and thinkers who see purpose when they look through a microscope or telescope. They see a variety and complexity in creation that cannot imaginably be explained by random actions of impersonal forces that were set in motion by nothing. Their studies are orthodox in method (look at evoinfo.org and biologicinstitute.org for examples). Their research is laid open for review. And they are deemed ridiculous because their conclusions are different than the majority of their colleagues. It is very strange to see some in the evangelical community give scant respect to the Intelligent Design movement, by the way. What could be more basic to the concept of evangelical theology than the notion that purpose and reason are evident in creation? I don’t expect respect for this view from the priesthood of Materialism, but scorn from those who claim a high view of Scripture implies that “evangelical” is fast becoming a useless term.

For those who believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead (scientifically impossible, right?) and that this history is recorded in a book inspired by God himself, we’ve already swallowed the camel. How strange to now strain at the gnat of basic biblical teachings on the origins of man. It’s not a new thing that we struggle to make what’s apparent to our eyes compatible with what God has revealed. And yet I read orthodox theology written hundreds, even more than a thousand years ago. Try that with science. Those were the days when physicians bled sick people. Since that day, credible scientific theories have supported dalliances with eugenics and genocide. Usually appropriate but nearly endless revolutions in science rarely correspond with new and true understandings of God and his revelation.  

We stand at the brink of the same crisis we’ve always faced: Do we worship the creator or do we worship his creation? More to the point, should we worship a God whose revelation of himself is as changeable as our theories regarding his creative and redemptive work?