X

The Colossian Forum Subscription Form

| Resume a previously saved form
Resume Later

In order to be able to resume this form later, please enter your email and choose a password.

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.

Colossian Blog
October 16, 2012 | Andy Saur

Article – What I Would Like To Hear A Young-Earth Creationist Say

Article – What I Would Like To Hear A Young-Earth Creationist Say

By Dr. Dennis Venema
October 16th, 2012

***See the companion article: “What I Would Like to Hear an Evolutionary Creationist Say” by Todd Charles Wood

When I was first asked to write this piece, a flurry of thoughts went through my mind about what things I would like to hear a Young-Earth Creationist (hereafter, YEC) say: things such as that the geologic column actually exists, that humans and chimpanzees have incredibly similar genomes, or that transitional fossils are real.[div id=”callout-right”]It’s the simple “brother” or “sister” that says – “we’re both part of the same family.”[end-div]Then I thought of more specific examples I’d like to see addressed – lake varves, ice core layers, or shared pseudogenes in nested hierarchies. Then, as I reflected further, I realized that these scientific issues are not the most important issues on the table.  In fact, the most important thing I would like to hear a YEC say to someone of my views isn’t a scientific statement at all – it’s a statement of unity in Christ. It’s the simple “brother” or “sister” that says – “we’re both part of the same family.” Even if we disagree on the mechanism of creation, affirming our unity in Christ needs to be the starting point for the conversation.

One of the issues that Christians of YEC or Evolutionary Creationist (EC) persuasions will likely face, sooner or later, is a breakdown in Christian fellowship over one’s views. For a YEC, this might take the form of being regarded as “ignorant” or “fundamentalist” by believers who hold differing views. For those of us who hold to an EC perspective, this can take place in a general sense when leaders in the YEC movement label us as “compromisers” or “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. While this is hurtful, it is at least somewhat abstract. More challenging is the personal form: what I call that look – perhaps over coffee in the foyer after the sermon – when an acquaintance suddenly looks at you with new eyes in a way that says “Whoa, just a minute. I’m not sure you’re really one of us!” For those ECs who are professional biologists, these encounters are virtually unavoidable:

“So, what do you do for work?”

“I’m a biologist. I teach up at the local Christian university.”

“Oh, really? You must really love the work that (insert the individual’s favorite anti-evolution ministry) does. It’s so good to have Christians like you who fight against evolution.”

“Well, actually…”

And not long after, it’s very likely that I’ll get that look – especially if I happen to be teaching a Sunday school class at the time. Even if my new acquaintance eventually comes to accept that I do have faith (of a sort) in Christ, often the sense I get is that they feel that I’m pretty wishy-washy, or that I don’t have a high view of Scripture. Now, I don’t get those feelings from close friends who know me well, but I wonder how many of those casual church acquaintances would have become closer friends but for this issue.

[div id=”callout-left”]We’ve given up the unity of the body over what I feel is a secondary issue.[end-div]Of course, even more concerning for me is the effect that these issues have on students who learn (almost always for the very first time) that evolution is a well-supported scientific theory, and that it is very challenging to defend YEC from a scientific viewpoint. After dealing with the shock personally, then the next issue is what to tell mom and dad. When they go home, say over Christmas, similar conversations around the dinner table or in the foyer are bound to happen. I’ve had some students relate the pain they go through – some do talk it over with their friends and family, but others can’t bring themselves to do so, because they know what will happen if they do.

And I grieve with them that we as believers are divided. We’ve given up the unity of the body over what I feel is a secondary issue.

It seems to me that the Apostle Paul had similar concerns over issues that divided believers in his day. Things like circumcision and dietary laws were issues that threatened to break the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers. For Paul, these issues were ones that he viewed as non-essential issues for Christians. In the case of food laws, he notes that as one in Christ Jesus he is convinced that no food is unclean of itself, but admonishes that Christians accept those still keeping the food laws without passing judgment. As for circumcision, Paul claims that neither circumcision nor lack thereof counts for anything, but then has Timothy circumcised in order that his partial Gentile parentage not be a stumbling block for Jews Paul was hoping to bring into the faith. These issues, both of which were “boundary markers” under the Abrahamic covenant for who was “in” or “out” of the people of God, are now discretionary items in light of the resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Discretionary as they were, there is one thing that Paul will come out swinging on, for both of these: any move that made them essential for Gentile Christians, and thus threatened the sufficiency of the Holy Spirit as a marker for who was part of the people of God. Driving this issue for Paul was a deep concern for the unity of the body: God had brought the Gentiles “in” by filling them with the Holy Spirit, not by requiring them to be circumcised and follow the food laws.  He minces no words for those who would make circumcision an essential for the Gentile believers in Galatia. When Peter, embarrassed at the arrival in Antioch of fellow Jews from Jerusalem, now refuses to sit at table with his Gentile brother and sisters, Paul calls him out in no uncertain terms.[div id=”callout-right”]Such division would hamstring the church and raise an unnecessary barrier to those outside the faith.[end-div]These were issues that threatened the gospel by bringing division and separation where God desired unity. Not unity of opinion, but rather the unity of sitting together and eating the Lord’s supper as one people of God, despite holding differences of opinion on disputable matters. For Paul, that unity cut across all social classes that divided people in his day – slave or free, Jew or Greek, male or female – and he was not going to allow secondary issues to undo what God had done in Christ and through the Spirit. Such division would hamstring the church and raise an unnecessary barrier to those outside the faith.

For me, I see similar themes with the evolution – creation discussion. Is it an important issue for Christians to discuss? Yes. Does the issue serve as a catalyst for a wide-ranging discussion on exegesis and hermeneutics? Certainly, and that in and of itself can be very healthy. Is it acceptable for believers to hold either opinion and be within the people of God? I would say yes. It is my conviction that the mechanism by which God created is an issue of secondary importance compared to the underlying primary issue of holding God as the Creator and sustainer of all things. As a secondary issue, then, the only danger is making one of the options an essential, and dividing over it. Is it a problem if my brother or sister at church is a YEC? No. Is it a problem if I won’t share fellowship with them because of their views? Absolutely. Our difference of opinion on the mechanism of creation is not a gospel issue, but breaking fellowship over a secondary matter is a gospel issue. It hinders the love and fellowship that we are called to be known for, and raises an unnecessary barrier to those who would consider joining us.

So, to my YEC brothers and sisters, I would make this request. Without minimizing the importance of the exegetical issues that the creation/evolution controversy raises, let’s first and foremost sit at the Lord’s table and break bread together, recognizing each other as brothers and sisters in Christ and members of the same body. Those of us who see things from an EC perspective may need to repent of belittling our YEC brothers and sisters as scientifically ignorant or theologically naive. Those of a YEC perspective may need to repent of condemning their EC brothers and sisters as “compromisers” or theologically liberal. Together we can affirm that what matters most is that Christ’s body not be divided over secondary issues – and then work to discuss these important matters in light of that affirmation.

 

Dr. Dennis Venema is an associate professor of biology at Trinity Western University and Senior Fellow of Biology for the BioLogos Foundation. He blogs frequently at http://biologos.org/blog.

 

Suggested Posts
Praying with the City in View
December 31, 2019 | Emily Stroble
Praying with the City in View
I’ve never experienced peace as acutely than when I visited the tiny town of Assisi, Italy three years ago. The path that winds across the steep hillside behind the city takes hikers through olive groves, which give way to brush and cypress trees that frame a honeycomb of caves. In mid-January, early in the morning, even the light seemed to move gently. I was happy to be outside and excited to be traveling, and I smiled to myself as I made my way up the slope. I found it funny that I should be walking through olive branches in a little forest of peace when, in the village below, I could hardly order coffee in my American accent without receiving quips and comments about the recent 2016 U.S. presidential election. The monastery above Assisi has a remarkable story. Monks still live and worship there, and they always have, despite the rise and fall of the empires, kings, and dictators. The monks come from all over to live in this little cluster of low-ceilinged cells and chapels. As I walked up the hill toward the monastery with my tour group, the monastic life seemed an appealing path. How rich to walk up a mountain to sit in the presence of God and never go back to the noise and confusion of politics and the rest of civil life. As we arrived, a tall monk greeted us warmly. He motioned us out of the wind. He was shyly apologetic for his English, which was clear as a bell against the wind. He spoke softly, telling us the history of the monastery. I don’t remember whether someone asked him about the monastic life or if he was reacting to the curiosity in our faces. He said something to the effect of, “People seem confused about monks. We live apart from the city, it’s true. We devote our time to prayer. But we are not completely severed from the world. We are not ignorant of what is going on. We care deeply for our city. We chose this place to pray here for the city.” He straightened his hunched shoulders and swept a long arm across the valley with its steeples, farms, and domed basilicas. “We live apart from the city to pray with the city in view,” he said. That sentence has echoed in my head ever since. As we all can, I’ve grappled for years with the command to be “in the world and not of it.” And, in the political tension that’s defined the last few years, my uncertainty around what faith calls me to do politically has needled me more urgently. Yet, in all my wrestling, arguing, doubt, and looking for the petition I could sign or the party I could join that would align me with “Christian Politics,” it never occurred to me to pray for anything other than my preferred outcome in an election or vote. I think praying with the city in view is something different from praying for the city. First, when you are apart from the city but keep it in view, it’s easier to remember to which kingdom you belong, and you can care for the city in its proper place as a part of God’s kingdom. When you are in the city, the dramas and concerns of the human world fill your whole field of vision. When we stand apart from the city, we gain some perspective, and our desires align more closely to a sincere prayer of “on earth as it is in Heaven.” Second, the practice of prayer, rather than the desired outcome, becomes our path to closer relationship with God. Rather than getting to God through praying about politics, we become people primarily of prayer who are better formed to face political conflicts. What place should intercession have in our politics? It is a beautiful act of Christ-imitation. And if monastic prayer can inform politics, what other practices might hold us together as we wade through the muck of our most divisive issues, like immigration, recreational marijuana, and who should lead? These are some of the questions we begin with in The Colossian Forum’s Political Talk curriculum, launching in early February. You can visit colossianforum.org/politicaltalk for more information and to pre-order your copy. As we head into a year when politicians and parties will be competing vigorously for our allegiance, and political conversations have the potential to escalate and drive wedges between even longtime friends and close family, I humbly invite you to consider a set-apart posture like the one I learned in Assisi. In 2020, may you pray with the city in view and find hope in the opportunity for reconciliation that our conflicts – no matter their context – offer us.
The Vulnerability of God
December 24, 2019 | Chris De Vos
The Vulnerability of God
Upon being born, a baby presents problems—problems that seem so manageable during the nine months of pregnancy. Rude cries for food in the night, raw soiling of blankets throughout the day, and utter dependency upon us in each passing moment drain our energy and, for some, test the limits of our patience. Although we are programmed to respond a certain way when a baby smiles (a gesture that releases pleasant chemicals into our central nervous systems), her piercing cries have the power to render nothing short of sheer frustration from the best of us. For me, it was the daily, unrelenting dependence upon my wife and me that led me to wonder what we were thinking when we decided to have a child. Well, we thought about the future. About the future of this world. After all, there is no future without babies. As grandparents now, we see this even more profoundly. I wonder whether Mary and Joseph had similar reflections. After all, the birth of Christ was always about the future. From the moment Adam and Eve acted in self-defiance against God’s wishes, the future of creation itself was in question. God spoke of the future when blessing the nations through Abraham, when establishing a throne for David, and when anointing a suffering servant king that Isaiah foretold. The future of everything hinged upon God’s decision to conceive a child in Mary. The logistics of all this have produced stretch marks in the minds of the best thinkers in history, and many have rejected the reality or deconstructed its power.  But the message proclaimed in Christ’s birth begins with the reality of God, incarnate in a baby. God, emptied, to some extent, of God’s pure divinity, born as any human baby is born – to a woman crying out in labor and a father pained by the agony in his wife‘s face. A child, smeared with bluish-white goo, wiped perhaps by a rough muslin rag and washed while breathing in his first breath of air. A couple questioning the sense of having a child in this world, let alone one with such strange prophecies about it. God took a chance at the right time, we’re told. But it all seems so full of vulnerability, ready to fall apart at any moment. Salvation depended on Joseph and Mary trusting in God’s idea of the future. The whole plan rested upon those two parents and their openness to the possibility of Jesus -- “God with us.” And to a great extent, the future still does. My theological muscles are not strong enough to understand the fine points of human-divine natures co-mingling in the person of Jesus, but I do believe it and believe that Jesus’ birth is our greatest hope for the future. For to deny it, or turn from it, or go about life as if it didn’t happen means to turn life over to ourselves. It means to say that God never has come to live in our skin. That God is distant, uninvolved. It means to say that God does not exist, or if he does, he does not understand us. To trust in this story is to keep the door open for new possibilities for the future, despite our fears, doubts, weaknesses, and divisions. To believe this story is to accept vulnerability as the starting point for new life. In our cultural moment, in which we’re so deeply polarized, this hope for renewal and reconciliation is more meaningful to me than ever. At Christmas, we reverently and joyfully remember that the vulnerability of God leads to the viability of a renewed creation – a new you, a new me, and a new relationship, even with our enemies!

601 Fifth St. NW, Suite #101
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

(616) 328-6016

info@colossianforum.org