Colossian Blog
July 5, 2012 | Lori Wilson

Article – Surrender

Surrender

Todd Charles Wood
June 1, 2012

In my previous Colossian Forum essay, I concluded that the way forward in the culture war over creation and evolution is surrender. As I saw it then (and see it now), surrender follows Christ’s own example of radical humility and surrender in the face of death, a death that would bring eternal life to many. But even as I wrote about this surrender, I honestly had no clue what it might entail. How does one surrender in a battle over truth? How would that achieve anything? Are we supposed to just let heresy into the church, whatever we think heresy might be? I’ve given these questions a lot of thought, prayer, and study, and I can’t say that I’ve resolved anything too clearly yet. At this point, however, I’m pretty sure I know what surrender isn’t.

I know that surrender doesn’t mean that we can just pretend it doesn’t matter. For some folks, that might seem like an easy way out, especially when the issues are complicated. Why try to understand the intricacies of argon-argon dating or genetic coalescence if you don’t have to? Is Genesis really worth all the fuss? I have to admit that for many individuals, ignoring the problem is probably good enough. It really is a complicated subject, and it’s not something you can get a handle on by reading a blog post or a magazine article. If it doesn’t affect the way you live your life, why worry about it?

But is that really the way we as the collective body of Christ ought to deal with differences? Especially when the disagreements aren’t just about whether to serve juice or wine, but about what the entire narrative of salvation really is? The creation/fall/redemption narrative has been part of Christian theology for centuries, and evolution appears to pose a profound challenge to that narrative. We all know that there are many who claim that evolution is not compatible at all with Christian theology, and there are also those who seem happy to begin the task of re-imagining theology for this evolutionary age. That sounds like an important issue to me. Maybe it’s not a discussion that everyone can participate in equally, but the Church needs to collectively address this problem. Surrender cannot mean ignoring the issue.

I’m also sure that surrender isn’t just letting the “other side” win. That’s the most obvious meaning of surrender, but that’s definitely not what Christ did on the cross. He couldn’t possibly let the enemy win, especially when His surrender was the very key to victory. If we are to follow His example, we can’t just let the other side win, whoever the other side might be.

I also think we shouldn’t let one side win because the issues at stake are far too important. On the one hand, evolutionary creationists claim that young-earth and progressive creationists distort or even lie about scientific research and discoveries. On the other hand, young-earth and progressive creationists claim that making peace with evolution undermines the heart of the Christian message. These charges are far too important to surrender without careful evaluation, especially if there’s some measure of truth in the accusations of both sides. It’s too soon to just let one side win. Surrender must be something more.

Looking back at the passion of Christ, I think we can find some guidance for our own acts of surrender in His Gethsemane prayer, “Not my will but thine be done.” Christ’s surrender was not to circumstances, the Devil, or other people. Jesus surrendered to God and God alone. [div id=”callout-right”]Looking back at the passion of Christ, I think we can find some guidance for our own acts of surrender in His Gethsemane prayer, “Not my will but thine be done.”[end-div]I take from His prayer two essential ingredients in surrender. First, Christ gave up His own desire to avoid the crucifixion. Second, Christ conceded to the all-powerful control of God the Father, trusting that He was working a much greater good through what seemed like impossibly difficult circumstances. How could that work in this debate over creation?

I think first we need to surrender our own selfish desires. In academic debates, like any other argument, personal desire goes beyond just being right. When I’m in a heated argument, I want my opponent to admit that I’m right. If I didn’t, there wouldn’t be an argument in the first place. I would just present my understanding of things, and my opponent would do likewise. Then we might talk about the potential weaknesses or strengths of our ideas, but that would be it. We’d end the discussion with a better understanding of our positions. In reality, arguments get heated when we want the opponents to concede to our superior understanding. That’s a vain and selfish desire if ever I heard one. For us to move forward in this creation debate, we must surrender that desire.

But wait, this isn’t just any old argument here. We’re talking about potentially serious problems. If creationists really are distorting science and bringing shame on the gospel, that’s a big deal, and likewise, if evolutionists are fundamentally altering the basic message of Christian theology. Is this something we can just sit down and have a chat about? This is the future of the Church at stake. We need to take some kind of action. Right?

That brings me to the second ingredient of Christ’s surrender: acknowledging the sovereignty of God. In the debate over creation, there’s a lot of hand-wringing over what will happen to the Church if evolutionists or creationists win. The evolutionists will destroy Christianity, or the creationists will turn us into a cult! It seems to me that these exaggerations both ignore the power of God. He’s preserved His Church for two thousand years through some grim and horrifying heresies. Should we suddenly expect that He’s powerless to guide us through this debate on creation? Does He really need us to step in and help Him out? Or are we just betraying our own lack of faith?

I think that the God who created this universe is still God enough to help us work out our differences. I know that His Word will accomplish what He sends it to do. He doesn’t need my help to get the point across. He doesn’t need me to defend Him. If we believe that God is sovereign – if we really believe it – then we really ought to relax and let Him do His work. Surely He can sort out all these debates when we seek His guidance, but if we try to control things ourselves, to selfishly get the other side to admit we’re right, we really will bring shame on the gospel.

I confess that these acts of surrender will not be easy. I really do want to recognize God’s sovereignty and to give up my vain desires, but as a young-earth creationist, I have grave concerns about the mixing of evolution and Christian theology. I feel like I need to do something, but maybe that something is surrender. Maybe I should cast myself at Jesus’ feet and ask Him to help my unbelief. I hope you’ll do the same, and perhaps together we’ll see God move in a remarkable way.

I think He’d like that.

 

Todd Charles Wood is an associate professor of biology and director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College. In his spare time, he enjoys classic movies, making pie, and traveling with his wife.

Suggested Posts
Reflections on Unity
May 24, 2017 | Josh Webb
Reflections on Unity
As a soon-to-be college graduate who is looking forward to heading out into the world, I’ve realized that I’m inheriting an American society that is more polarized than ever. Republicans hate Democrats, Democrats hate Republicans, and all of us are suspicious of those Independents. As I think about where I may find my next church home, I often read the statements of faith that many churches now publish on their websites. I ask myself if it’s a liberal church or a conservative church. I wonder what position their members and leadership take on gay marriage or evolution. Sometimes, from just a simple glance at a church web page, I uncharitably conclude that, “These aren’t the type of Christians I want to worship with”. I assume that I am not alone in this. Yet are we not one church? Do we not eat at one table, kneel at one cross, praise but one name? Across political, socioeconomic, and geographic divides, all Christians claim the same good news: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us and was resurrected. How, then, do we account for the incredible differences in opinion among Christians today and what exactly do we do about it? The Apostle Paul compares the church to a human body. Like a human body, the body of Christ is made up of many parts. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul writes, “Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit”. Each part of the body brings a different perspective, a different understanding, and has a different role to play. But no part can function on its own and all must work together to survive. Even in the tremendous diversity of the body, by God's power there is unity. This unity in Christ has been hard to see in recent times. Christians of differing theological understandings have resorted to schism and isolation rather than attempting the hard work of confronting conflict. And while it may seem easier for rival factions to simply go their separate ways, where is the Christian witness in running from difficult situations? Is our belief in God's power so small that we cannot fathom the bridging of our differences? Is our commitment to Jesus' command to love one another really so weak? Paul's words admonish our actions: "The eye can never say to the hand, 'I don’t need you.' The head can’t say to the feet, 'I don’t need you.'" Our Christian witness is not found in our ability to agree on all things. We are not called to be a church of mindless clones. That is the witness of human culture, which forces individuals to choose between agreement or exclusion. Instead, our Christian witness is found in the fact that we are one body of many disagreeing parts. Our witness is found in our diversity, in our humility, in our graciousness, in our love for God, and in our love for one another. This is something the world cannot offer, for only God can hold together such a messy, marvelous body. As it is written in Colossians 1:17-18 (TCF’s namesake verse), “in Christ all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church ….” Even with Christ as the head, disagreements will still exist among believers. But Christians have a choice when it comes to conflict in their churches. And when we choose to let Christ hold us together, we choose to receive the blessing of his saving grace and the power of his resurrection. The spiritual death that is enmity, division, and suspicion can be turned into a renewed life of love, unity, and understanding. I've seen it happen in my own life. I work at a church whose theological and political leanings differ from mine. Over the years, I've found myself becoming more critical and less gracious in my thoughts toward my church. But God has been working on my heart, and while I still don't agree with some of my church family, I've started loving them in a new way. Instead of loving my church family despite our disagreements, I've somehow come to love them because of those disagreements. I'm beginning to realize that my brothers and sisters who disagree with me are not some sort of trial or hardship, but an example of God's grace in my life. How else are we to experience God's grace and power if not through his ability to renew our lives in the midst of conflict and disagreement? I have been blessed with the time I've had as an intern at The Colossian Forum. My experience here has helped me come to a new understanding of what it means to be a part of the body of Christ. As I move forward into this next chapter of my life, I pray for opportunities to put this new perspective into practice, trusting that all things truly will hold together in Christ.
Schools Bridging Faith and Science
May 17, 2017 | Jennifer Vander Molen
Schools Bridging Faith and Science
This article originally appeared on May 8, 2017, in Convivium, a publication of CARDUS: www.cardus.ca. Thanks for the mention! Controversy over religion and science is nothing new. That’s certainly true in the world of education. Indeed, a recent commentary in the Washington Post lamented 60 examples of what the author called “anti-science education legislation” that could affect what American students are taught regarding the evolution-creation debate and global warming. We may even see the odd flare-up of such conflict in Canada. So, it’s not surprising that public skepticism abounds regarding the ability of religious schools – evangelical Christian schools in particular – to teach science. However, new research by the Cardus Religious Schools Initiative (CRSI) at the University of Notre Dame offers evidence that such skepticism is ill founded. In their newly released paper, Blinded by Religion? Religious School Graduates and Perceptions of Science in Young Adulthood , researchers Jonathan Schwartz and David Sikkink examined religious school graduates’ orientations toward science. Using the latest Cardus Education Survey data from Canada and the United States, they analyzed graduates’ views on a range of subjects, including science, creation vs. evolution, and the number of science courses taken. They found that graduates of religious schools do sometimes hold distinct views on science as compared to public school graduates. But these distinctions aren’t uniform across the board. Neither are they the kinds of distinctions that would inspire popular caricatures of religious school grads as simpletons who believe in a flat Earth. In fact, when it comes to taking science courses, you’d be hard-pressed to find much difference between Canadian religious and public school graduates. Controlling for family background and parental education, Schwartz and Sikkink found that “students at private religious schools enroll in science classes at a similar rate to public school peers in Canada.” The distinction in the United States, meanwhile, is that only homeschoolers (religious and non-religious) were the least likely of all students to have taken courses in biology, chemistry, or physics, or to have had at least three science courses throughout high school. There was little to distinguish American graduates of private Christian schools from their public school counterparts in that regard. What about attitudes toward scientists? You might expect some animosity towards them from religious grads, but you wouldn’t find it in Canada. “Generally speaking, Canadians hold scientists in similar esteem regardless of their high school educational context,” say the researchers. It’s a slightly different picture in the United States. There, graduates of evangelical Protestant schools tend to be less trusting of scientists and assign a lower value to their social contributions than public school grads do. That’s a difference to be sure, but hardly a unique or problematic one from a social point of view. The battle over whether to teach creationist critiques of evolutionary theory is certainly sharper in the United States than in Canada. And that seems to emerge in the research as well. “In Canada, school sector does not on its own increase an individual’s belief in literal versions of creationism, but the U.S. case differs,” write Schwartz and Sikkink. American grads of evangelical Protestant high schools were found to be “more likely to adhere to a literal version of creation than their public high school peers.” What they couldn’t determine, though, was whether this was the result of teaching in science class, or an indirect result of the students’ religious and social lives. In short, it will take more research to draw conclusions about whether these schools actually make much difference in graduates’ creationist views. What about perceived conflicts between religious beliefs and science? On this question, both in Canada and in the U.S., there is little evidence to show that the type of school a student attended affects their likelihood to sense a science-religion conflict. However, the researchers did find that the more high school science courses Canadian students take, the more likely they are to perceive a conflict between science and religion. Notably, though, that holds regardless of which type of school they attended. So, this could be the result of a cultural difference between Canadians and Americans. While the science-religion conflict does not come up in a big way in this research, that’s not to say that perceptions of conflict don’t exist. Some educators are taking steps to equip themselves to handle such issues in the classroom, as evidenced by the creation of the FAST (Faith and Science Teaching) Curriculum developed by the Kuyers Institute and The Colossian Forum. The curriculum aims to help teachers lead their students into studying the intersection of faith and science, possibly reducing perceptions of conflict in the process. Meanwhile, William T. Cavanaugh, DePaul University theology professor, and James K. A. Smith, editor-in-chief of Cardus’s public theology journal Comment , have co-edited a new book that tackles related issues from a different angle. Evolution and the Fall examines the implications for a Christian understanding of creation and the entry of sin into the world if the widely accepted view of humanity’s evolutionary origins are true. Its provocative premise lays bare issues that Christians will inevitably have to deal with. All in all, we do see some differences between graduates of private Christians schools and public school graduates. But they aren’t all that stark or as shocking. If anything, this latest piece of CRSI research is perhaps our strongest indicator yet that Christian schools in Canada and the United States don’t have as troubled a relationship with science as many would expect. What’s more, there are efforts within the wider Christian community to bridge what perceived gaps do exist between faith and science.  In time, the research and bridge-building efforts may increase understanding and support for the vital place that religious schools hold in the education systems of both Canada and the U.S.