X

THE COLOSSIAN FORUM Subscription Form

Subscriber Information




Subscriptions

Resources

The Colossian Forum offers free resources to help you transform polarizing cultural conflicts into opportunities for spiritual growth and witness.

Mailing Address







Please enter the required value for your country.

Need assistance with this form?

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
When is the Gospel "Fake News"?
February 15, 2018 | Michael Gulker
When is the Gospel "Fake News"?
We’re constantly bombarded by divisiveness within our daily news—the right calling the left “fake news,” the left dismissing the “news” of the right through quiet (or not so quiet) condescension. Whatever the case, neither hardly qualifies as news. It’s stale and unimaginative culture war posturing where everyone seems perennially angry. Yet underneath all the anger lays deep fear—fear that our world, our culture, our church, our family—everything—is tearing apart. But God calls his people to bring “Good News” of great joy. We are the euangélion of Jesus Christ—eu means “good” and ángelos means “messenger.” Believers are meant to be like angels bringing good news of what Jesus has done, is doing, and will do in the world. We should be the least fearful of all people because we believe in Jesus, who was born to fulfill “the oath he swore to our father Abraham: to set us free from the hands of our enemies, free to worship him without fear, holy and righteous in his sight all the days of our life.” (Luke 1:73-75) So, we must ask, “Is the story of our life in Christ good news or fake news?” Well, a couple of questions. First, are we doing and saying anything new? Second, does it embody the good? A quick glance at the way churches are mimicking the surrounding culture through bickering and partisanship, belies the notion that their posture in the world is either new or good. The church seems more a cliché of culture than a contrast to it. What makes this even more problematic is our claim to follow the Prince of Peace. If we are divisive and fearful then we’re not only cliché but hypocritically cliché. Doubly boring. Doubly bad. This sort of “gospel” is fake news, hardly worth the bits and bytes it’s communicated over. So, where’s the good news we long for and why are we having such a hard time embodying it in ways that are either new or good? Where is our confidence in our Risen Lord who has conquered division and death? What would it mean for you and I to have a renewed vision of the gospel as truly good news and to become confident messengers of its transforming power? So much of our imagination is now captured by the right or the left that it’s hard to think outside of these culturally prescribed categories. Perhaps that’s why it took a 500-year-old painting to jolt my imagination. I don’t remember where I ran across it, but there I was, confronted with DaVinci’s famous painting of The Last Supper. His masterpiece depicts a microcosm of God’s people past and present. And it struck me that all of the radical political and ideological differences (and inherent conflicts) of our own culture are represented by those gathered around that table. The disciples seated to the right and left of Jesus were as ideologically diverse and divided as we are today. A fractious bunch of infighters all vying for a slice of the new kingdom, whatever it might look like. Were the zealots arguing for insurrection against the damnable religious mainstream in cahoots with the deep state? Were the tax collectors and moderates more confident in the goods of compromise and stability in the market? Who knows? But it’s not hard to imagine them all claiming that God was on their side. Hardly news. It’s an old, stale story. So, who did Jesus side with? Right or left? Conservative or Liberal? Moderate or Revolutionary? Or did he opt for something more inclusive like a lowest-common-denominator faith where everyone should just get along? None of these options seem to fit. But when the pressure mounted, Christ died for each disciple while they were fleeing, cowering, or denying him—while they were “yet sinners.” I wonder how long they continued arguing with and blaming each other for the way things went wrong? Jesus doesn’t argue ideology with them. He doesn’t take up one political platform over against another. He interjects his own politics, the politics of the Trinity—a politics characterized by an eternal delightful self-giving love. This love can’t be stopped by any division, fearful darkness, or death. Jesus goes forward, not just telling the truth about God’s love, but embodying it. He does not win arguments. Rather, he lays down his life so the world will know the love of God. He displays the life he has with the Father and invites us into that life. I wonder, might Lent be the place for us to give up our well-reasoned and tightly-held ideologies for the sacrificial love of the other we so disdain? Wouldn’t that be good news?
The Magic of Entering Another's World
February 7, 2018 | Rob Barrett
The Magic of Entering Another's World
One prospective Colossian Forum participant put it this way: “What will we do after I say my piece, he says I’m wrong, then he says his piece and I say he’s wrong?” Nobody wants to repeat the same, tired arguments yet again. Or worse, what about when there is absolutely nothing to talk about? “Evolution is established reality so stop saying it isn’t.” “The Bible clearly says homosexual activity is evil so I’m not listening.” End of story. No more discussion. What then? Beyond deadlocked arguments, these are seemingly inescapable mires of incomprehensibility. But we serve the Lord who demolishes dividing walls (Ephesians 2:14). Crossing the rubble of the demolition begins by desiring to see things—if even for a moment—through the other’s eyes. Or even to feel the weight of what so convinces the other. This moves toward the truth. It is the way of Jesus, who walked alongside Pharisees, tax collectors, and prostitutes. He brought them life where they were without leaving them there. Jesus invited people into His world by painting pictures of His kingdom that made sense in their world. Entering another’s world demands firm rootedness in my own. “Open-mindedness” to others is not intellectual laziness or confusion but sets me aside for a moment to care for another. And so we imitate Christ: “Value others above yourselves” (Philippians 2:3). Talking in Colossian Forums isn’t just about transferring information. It’s about visiting strange, new worlds where we kindle shared desire for truth, shared yearning for friendship and shared devotion to Jesus. Since these things are far beyond our grasp, we ask for God’s help…together. “Please open my brother’s eyes…and my heart,” we sometimes beg. Only then can we voice our frustration: “How can you think the way you do?” An honest question seeking an honest answer. Now we’re talking. There’s no magic for entering another’s world. It’s like any new friendship. We ask each other’s story. “How did you come to faith? What kind of church shaped you? When have you doubted? How have you suffered?” We talk about what we fear will go wrong if the other side wins. We talk about why we think the other is damaging the church and what we admire about each other. We pray for each other. And, yes, we talk about the complex questions and challenges that divide us. After we talk, we need to return to prayer. We give thanks for being drawn closer to God and one another. We repent of how we’ve wronged God and one another. We voice our hope that He will continue to hold all things together (Colossians 1:17). It’s hardly rocket science, but that’s the kind of talking across difference that keeps drawing us back for more.