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
April 26, 2017 | Jennifer Vander Molen

A Striking, Intelligent, and Respectful Dialog

Last fall, we participated in an event at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, MI, called Beyond the Creation Wars. It featured talks on origins from our partners Darrel Falk and Todd Wood as well as expanded conversation about their journey together in friendship. We stumbled on this blog post written by Andrews student Mykhaylo Malakhov. He talks about the event, how it shaped him as a scientist, and how it embodied what universities stand for:

Here was a roomful of scholars who hold vastly different views on a very controversial issue, yet they were engaging in intelligent, respectful dialogue, viewing each other as both real scientists and real Christians. To me, this was striking.

All too often controversial issues such as origins are either approached through a debate format where each side tries to prove the other wrong or through an ecumenical, let’s-forget-our-differences-and-focus-on-Jesus approach. It is either a battle to determine who is right or an utter disregard for truth as if it doesn’t matter what we believe as long as we can agree on something. I always found both approaches unsatisfactory.

The debate approach leads to anger and division, and both sides leave even more determined to keep fighting for their preconceived opinions. I cannot agree with the ecumenical approach either, because being a scientist myself I cannot say that it does not matter what one believes. Either 2+2=4 or it doesn’t. Either a theorem is true or it isn’t. Either the earth is young or it is old. To set aside all controversial issues, especially ones as fundamental as the question of origins, would be to commit intellectual suicide. In other words, neither one of these approaches leads to any progress. Neither one leads its participants to a fuller and more accurate understanding of the world, and neither one will ever lead to a knowledge of truth.

The Andrews Autumn Conference on Religion and Science, however, took an entirely different path. All attendees acknowledged that truth does matter, yet all agreed to seek that truth together in an open-minded approach where we not only respect each other, but sincerely acknowledge that each of us is a legitimate scientist and a sincere Christian.

You can read the entire post here. Thanks for your insight, Mykhaylo!

Suggested Posts
Join the TCF Team!
February 21, 2018 | Jennifer Vander Molen
Join the TCF Team!
If you're inspired by our mission to transform messy situations into opportunities for spiritual growth and witness, have administrative gifts and a strong attention to detail, you might be a great fit for us here at The Colossian Forum. We currently have an opening for a full-time Project and Administrative Coordinator in our Grand Rapids office. The key components of this position include: Communication with internal and external partners Database administration (Salesforce experience is a plus!) Event coordination Financial and office administration You can read more about the responsibilities, qualifications, and how to apply on our jobs page. Applications and cover letters will be accepted through February 28. And yes, we are serious about applicants including a cover letter with the resume.
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?