God vs. Science or God & science vs. Evangelicals?

I'm nervous about going here, just because I don't want to be disowned, disavowed, or simply dis'd. But this is a pretty important issue, which I firmly believe we've gotten on the wrong side of, so I'm not going to hold back. Please take the time to read it first, and then disown, disavow, etc.

One of the big things many evangelicals need to reconsider is the tendency to disregard or even disdain science and its findings. This most frequently relates to evolution, but it can also involve climate change, medicine, psychology, or other things. The best example of anti-science bias among evangelicals I know of came from Chuck Colson, on his Breakpoint radio program. He said (and I believed, at the time) that many scientists supported and argued for evolution, not because of evidence, but because they wanted freedom from the Bible's sexual rules. Right... It was the Bible, not anything else, holding back those science nerds from fulfilling their sexual wishes (sorry, science nerds).

Seriously, though, something that's come across inescapably clearly from some sources in evangelicalism is that science can't be trusted because of an anti-God bias that scientists have. Evolution is accepted by scientists, the claims go, not because of evidence, but because it justifies their atheism.

I can understand this, because I used to believe it. All of it. Most of my life I've been a young earth creationist, disagreeing with the overwhelming scientific consensus, on the basis of some things I had been told were true. First, evolution is in crisis for lack of evidence, and scientists in each field assume the other fields must have evidence, because their own field does not. Second, as I've already mentioned, scientists have ulterior motives, or an anti-god agenda. And, finally, evolutionists had never given creation scientists a serious look - if they did, they'd say, "Oh, this explains the evidence we see so much better than evolution." I used to be there, but I've since seen that each of my foundations for throwing out scientific consensus were incorrect (I'll do a post on that another time). In any case, I've argued throughout most of my life for the young earth creationist view, so I understand what that's like. But it's time for science and conservative Christianity to get reacquainted.

Because science and Christianity should be, and traditionally have been, allies. Science is in the business of discovering what things are and how they function. There's a long tradition of scientists seeing themselves (and being seen) as helping mankind better understand God. One of the greatest scientists of all time, Isaac Newton, wrote more about the Bible than he did about science. Descartes, Pascal, Mendel, and most other early scientists, who laid the foundation for what we know about the world today, were Christians who wanted to study creation to better know God. Galileo wrote a letter during his controversy (a very wordy letter) affirming the inability of the Bible and science to disagree, but also stating that either can be misinterpreted (that's my summary). Georges Lemaitre, the man who came up with the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest. Francis Collins, who led the human genome project to sequence mankind's DNA, is an evangelical Christian. Christianity and science should be friends, God is allied with those who pursue truth. Jesus said the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). Titus 1:2 teaches that God cannot lie.  And, science is first and foremost about seeking truth. That's always been the purpose of science. And I'm probably being redundant here, but it's important to understand that science as we think of it today was essentially founded by men who believed God had given them an orderly world, and as they studied it, they learned about him as well.

Now, science isn't inerrant, as I believe the Bible to be. But science is self-correcting, and that's a big deal. What I mean by that is, unlike many of us, scientists work to disprove one another's ideas, and when that happens, it's big exciting news for scientists. That doesn't mean, obviously, that science can't be wrong, but here's what it does mean.

There's a vast gulf, a chasm, between "opinion" and "scientific consensus". One is not as likely to be valid as the other. It also means if you want to deny science, in any area such as evolution or climate change where countless studies have been done and replicated over decades, the onus is on you to put forward another plausible theory. Bonus points if you also supply people with an idea of what you'd accept as proof that your hypothesis is incorrect, making it testable. Finally, it's helpful to present a plausible explanation for why science has got the whole thing completely wrong, such as the reasons I believed scientists were wrong on evolution. That way, you're able to evaluate whether, for example, all scientists who accept evolution really do have something against God, or if you might be the one who's incorrect. For me, I started to question my assumptions when I came across scientists who were vehemently pro-evolution but also clearly where conservative Christians or even (like Francis Collins) evangelical.

Now, what I'm saying in this post doesn't mean you have to believe in evolution, or any other scientifically accepted position. It does mean it's not sufficient to say, "Scientists really like sex, drugs & sin, so they came up with a god-free theory of origins." If you're going to disagree with a broad scientific consensus, you need to present your own theory of how we got here that explains what's observed in the natural world. For example, we can see light from stars that would have taken 13.6 billion years to get here. That doesn't seem compatible with the idea that all things were created 6,000 years or so ago. So, maybe you pick "God created a mature universe that looks old, and included light in between earth and stars" or perhaps you go with creation days representing different eras in an old earth view, or you may say the universe is old, but God created our planet 6,000 years ago in six days. All of those are fine. But what you shouldn't do is simply say, "I believe God created everything, 6,000 years ago, and your scientific evidence is meaningless because I know scientists hate God." Science doesn't work that way, and neither does reality.

God has a monopoly on truth, plain and simple. Science, insofar as it seeks to find truth, is serving God, and we as Christians shouldn't view it as an enemy, even if it might go against some things we've believed previously - not because the Bible is wrong, but because our interpretation or assumptions may have been.

Finally, below is a video from the conservative Christian organization Biologos, which was founded by Francis Collins, which puts some of the strongest evidence for evolution in fairly simple terms. If you're interested.

Leave a comment, and let me know what you think. Thanks for reading!

Credit where credit is due

I don't want to be a guy who just criticizes the church, because the church is the bride of Christ, and there are many things evangelical churches are doing well. I hit on that in another post, but I've recently noticed another one (and I may notice a lot more - as an evangelical, I'm probably one of the last people to notice the characteristics of evangelicalism, good or bad).

Evangelicals are doing a great job recently (and it mostly just started recently) carrying out part A of James 1:27, which says, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." As far as being polluted by the world, we've got some wins and some losses, but there's been a real drive recently in evangelical churches to adopt, and that's a great thing. Two quick examples, though I'm sure there are countless ones out there: Recently, a couple from seminary I'm facebook friends with adopted a son, and I've never seen something so "liked" as their first picture together - it beat out the typical popular person's engagement, wedding or new baby picture by about a factor of five. Another example: the church I attend has a fund specifically to help couples who want to adopt but can't afford it. The fund has money in it, and the church holds events to benefit that fund (and that's not the only adoption-focused thing they do).

Of course, adoption ought to be something Christians are totally "in to", because we've benefited so much from adoption ourselves. Paul says in Ephesians 1:5-6, "In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will - to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." Pretty cool what God has done for us, through the cross of Christ, and when we adopt, it presents a picture of his loving kindness to those we know. So it ought to be a Christian thing. But it is a Christian thing now, and that's great.

Evangelicalism has never been hostile to adoption, that I've been aware of, but it's a great thing to see it actively promoted and cheered on the way it is today. I don't know if there's a cause that started it other than the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit - seems like I read somewhere Focus on the Family was really trying to advocate it, or it might just have been God moving among his people, but either way, it's another good thing about evangelicalism, which brings us to 8 2/3.

An Example of the Elephant Problem

This is what I'm talking about. Very few churches act like this, but for some Christians, this billboard makes sense, even though it doesn't explain why voting Republican has anything to do with Jesus. Whoever paid for the billboard doesn't explain it because they believe it's obvious. This literally tells people they need Christ, but the only action it suggests is voting Republican. That makes an association in some people's minds that's going to push them away from Christ. Even if the Republicans are right about everything (which I'm not suggesting), many people won't see it that way.

Now, it could be photoshopped - not being a photoshop user, I imagine it's pretty easy to photoshop a billboard. But I haven't seen anyone suggesting evidence that it was. Here's where I came across it, if anyone wants to investigate further. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/08/billboard-of-day_30.html

Elephant in the Room

I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can with you. The biggest problem with evangelicalism today is that so many of us are trying to serve two masters - but not God and money. The biggest stumbling block that we have, and a cause of many of our other problems, is that we have pledged our allegiance to the Republican party. Like the Roman Catholic Church of early Christian history, we've tried to unite God and government, and that corrupts both our religion and Republicans. We get the worst of it, though, because most politicians are already corrupt.

Now, before I go on, I want to make one thing clear: very little of this is because of what happens in our pulpits Sunday morning (though there is a little of that in every church, and a lot of that in very few churches). We get it from Christian books, Christian colleges or school curriculum, Christian radio, Focus on the Family voter guides, and various issue groups. It's nebulous, and it's probably not your pastor's fault. Having said that, let's talk about the problem.

The union we have began, essentially, in the late 1970s and early 80s, for what I believe was a good cause - putting a stop to abortion in the wake of Roe vs. Wade. The origins are a bit complex and darker than that, but we'll save that for another post. Reagan's pro-life presidential run was when most evangelicals got on board with the Republican party. Before that, evangelicals were not a coherent voting block as they've become today.

There are two big problems with this alliance. The first, and easier to see, is that evangelicals haven't gotten much out of the deal. Take a look, for the easiest and most recent example, at the Bush years. I believe president Bush is a Christian, and I voted for him both times. From his election until November of 2006, both houses of Congress had Republican majorities. During that time, what did we see done about abortion? We did see a ban on partial birth abortion, a procedure that had been done 2,000 times per year. That's it. Now, that's something, but it amounts to less than .2% of the million abortions we have a year. Further, it didn't ban late term abortions, but one method of late term abortions. Whichever category of women sought those abortions in the past are likely still getting late term abortions, just by a different method. So, that's what we saw, in return for electing a President twice and who knows how many congressmen. Effectively, nothing. A cynic might point out that if the Republicans dealt with abortion, many of us might stay home, and there may be something to that idea in terms of explaining why they promise so much but deliver so little. So, first problem: voting Republican doesn't get us much, if anything.

The second problem is this: our desire for Republicans to succeed forces us to make a difficult choice whenever God and Republicans disagree. And we often make the wrong choice, or follow the wrong leader. Evangelicals supported preemptive war in Iraq, we're the group most likely to support torture, we (loudly) denounced a free-market attempt to provide healthcare to all Americans, we're currently fighting for lower than record-low taxes on the top 1% while shouting that the national debt is too high, we unconditionally support military spending which we could cut in half and still be ahead of Russia & China combined, we complain about people being on food stamps (a program I personally think God is delighted with) when unemployment is the highest it's been since the Great Depression, and let's just say that our views on immigration widely diverge from "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Lev. 19:34)". I know I've painted with a broad brush, we're all individuals, etc., but many of us have held or hold views that are entirely at odds with scripture, because it's easier to support Republicans wholesale than to say, "I'm voting for Romney, just because he's pro-life, but there are a lot of things I like better about the Democrats." Pledging allegiance to the Republicans, to whatever degree that you do so, blinds you to the areas where they ignore what God cares about.

Now, if we did the opposite, and just switched to Democrats, in 30 years we'd have the same problem. That's no long-term solution, although it could certainly make waves if Democrats thought there were votes to be had by appealing to believers. Right now, neither party has to compete for those votes, because they're essentially locked up. I'm not saying you have to switch sides. I would suggest becoming an honestly independent voter, though. Make a list of major issues, and try to figure out, honestly, which party is on God's side with each one. If you come up all Republican, your worldview may be infected and you might need to clean it out. Same thing goes the other way, if you're all Democrat. Keep in mind the quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, who we would likely say today was on the right side: “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”

Only about 35% of Americans consider themselves Republican. Let's not alienate the other 65% from Christ by clinging too closely to Republicans, and let's not give Republicans a free pass when a particular policy (or many, as I'll likely argue in a future post) are simply against Christian teaching. There's a lot more to talk about here, but that's a start. Let me know how you see it in the comments.

Evangelical Bathwater

I've started this blog because evangelicalism has dirty bathwater, but a good baby. Is everyone familiar with the phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?" It describes overreaction, tossing the whole thing when only part of it is bad. And that's what a lot of people are doing with evangelicalism right now. Young people especially. I want to see the trend stop, but if you have to decide between keeping both or tossing both, it's a tough decision. I believe evangelical Christianity is still the right decision, even with our problems, but it ought to be easy, a no-brainer.

Some people have asked me why I'm starting this blog - what am I hoping to accomplish?  I'm hoping to have three effects: First, I want to get rid of some dirty bathwater. Just for examples, I'd like to see evangelicals be the best stewards of the planet on the planet, instead of people who insist we can't affect it, or it doesn't matter because Christ will be back soon anyway. I'd like people to think of us, ahead of any other group, when they think about compassion for the poor, even if it's not done exactly our way. And I'd like us to be the loudest and most effective heralds of God's love for mankind since Christ himself was on earth. (People don't need to be told about their sin. They know they're sinful, even if they might disagree with us on some of the details. They need to be told that there's a solution to their sin, in Christ alone.) Among other things. I can't do that by myself, but I can be a voice for change.

Second, I want people to know that you can be an evangelical Christian without denying or ignoring science, supporting pre-emptive war, or opposing separation of church and state. I'm not saying here those things are wrong, just that they're tangential to evangelical beliefs. Many people interested in Christ, as well as current evangelicals see those things and want to turn away. My hope is even if we don't clean the bathwater, those people will know which things are genuinely attached to following Christ, and which things are merely trends among his fans.

Third, I want greater intellectual honesty and integrity in evangelicalism. In the past, science, philosophy, and academia were dominated by Christians because Christians loved truth, no matter the source. No one should promote truth and the desire to find it as much as evangelicals. Because truth only leads toward God, never away. The Bible teaches that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2, and others). Jesus said he is the truth in John 14:6. All truth is his, and we should pursue truth as a means to better pursue & be like Christ. We, as a group, need to be more humble about what we know, say less about what we don't, and most of all, avoid the temptation to appear as though we have all the answers.

What are stumbling blocks for the blind?

My blog takes its title from Leviticus 19:14, which says, "Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord." (NIV) I've always thought this was a pretty strange verse; who would do that? A jerk, I guess. Someone who picks on the defenseless, I guess. Someone who doesn't fear the Lord, we can infer from the verse. Someone who doesn't realize what the Lord might do to avenge them. Keep that verse in mind.

Come with me to 2 Corinthians 4:4. "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." The god of this age refers to the devil, and the verse says that he's blinded those who don't believe, so they can't properly understand the gospel and come to Christ. Non-Christians are blind people, spiritually.

And unfortunately, I believe we as evangelicals, who generally are the most concerned with sharing the glory of Christ with others, have become stumbling blocks to blind non-Christians. For a whole lot of reasons, people see us as the most visible, obvious Christians, and say, "I don't want any part in that." It's not because they love sin so much or are such horrible people, it's because we've attached so many cultural things to Christianity that have nothing to do with the call of Christ, and some of those things are bad.

Join me for an imaginative exercise - suppose you're a lost person, you've gotten the impression that there's more to this world than the physical, but you don't know which religion, if any, is the right one. You really like one religious teacher who lived a long time ago, we'll call him "Chresus Jist", but when you visit a church to learn more about Chresus, you receive a flyer about the need for universal healthcare from the greeter, there's an introductory skit about how abortion gave someone a chance to finish college, and the sermon is about how Chresus supported unions and was a vegetarian, neither of which you had seen any evidence for when you read his book. Really, try to imagine it. Would you feel like you "chose correctly" in that situation? Or would you go back out and say, either, that you need to do more research into other religions, or that you're not into "organized" religion, even though you believe in God?

If you're thinking "Good thing I believe in Jesus, and not this Chresus guy!" you're missing my point. We've given Jesus a lot of baggage that isn't his, and whether those other things are right or wrong (and some of them are wrong!), they're stumbling blocks to people who would otherwise find Jesus. And if Jesus is really our Lord, that ought to grieve us immensely.

Young people are leaving our evangelical churches in droves, and where many in the past would join later in life, that trend is drawing to a close as well. The reason isn't that people are different than they used to be; it's not that Jesus is changed; it's that we've attached things to Christianity that are really our own personal preferences. And because it's gone on for so long, evangelicalism has become so homogenous that most of us can't even see the problem, but we can see how ridiculous the Chresus Jist example is. (Maybe it is a bit over the top, but I visited a church once where the sermon opened with a joke about what a constant liar Obama is, and numerous times I've heard things in church about big government spending, with the accepted implication being that we should vote republican (as if the Republicans aren't big spenders) . My example is probably a lot for one service, but it's not disconnected from reality.)

We need to step back from all these things that most evangelicals agree on, but aren't taught in the Bible. We need to pry those things apart from our religious beliefs, and that MAY require letting go of one or the other. If it does, let's make sure it's Jesus that we hold on to, not anything else.

Full disclosure: Personally, I'm pro-life, notice that Jesus cared for the sick without charging, go back and forth on unions, and believe vegetarianism is probably a better way to live, but I haven't been able to find any plants made of meat.

What's wrong with Evangelicalism?

Something is wrong with the evangelical church in America. Let me be honest - lots of things are wrong with the evangelical church in America. It's not anything about Jesus; it's not a problem with historical, orthodox Christianity - though for a lot of people who've never known any other Christianity, it seems that way. But the problems don't involve anything central to our faith - the problems are with how we typically live out that faith, in America, in the 21st century. Said another way, I don't believe our problems are not rooted in our theological beliefs (and mine are probably pretty much the same as yours), they're in our behavior and our attitudes.
What problems am I talking about? Ask an atheist. Ask a non-believer, or someone who doesn't bother with church. Most of them will agree with the statement, "I like Jesus, it's his fan club I have trouble with." Their complaints, if they go into detail, might include disinterest in the plight of the poor & oppressed, favoritism toward the rich, self-righteous judgmentalism, hypocrisy, subtle (usually) sexism, anti-intellectualism, lack of concern for honesty when it suits our purposes, support for torture and war, regulating non-believers to live like believers, dismissal of those we disagree with, and our continual infatuation with the Republican party (to say it mildly) and disdain for Democrats (to say it even more mildly).
Of course, most of us don't line up with all the stereotypes. But stereotypes usually have some correlation with reality, and as a lifelong evangelical, who attended a prestigious evangelical Seminary, and pastored at a church with evangelical in the name, I'd say most of them are grounded in truth, and most of them have been true of me at one point or another - some probably still are.
So I'd submit that, much of the time, evangelicals are serving as a stumbling block to the spiritually blind, and it's something we need to recognize, confess & repent of. I don't know how to solve these issues, but I do know it usually helps to name the problems out loud, to other people. So let's get started.
But, before we do, let me say two things. First, I think there's a lot right with evangelism (read about it here), and my hope is to see reform, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And second, it's been a long & multifaceted process for me to see things how I do today - please don't assume we're so different that we can't have a conversation together about where the church is and where it ought to be.

Evangelicalism's Good Points

Let's talk a bit about what's good about evangelicalism. I'm an evangelical, and if you're reading this blog, you probably are too, or were once, and ought to be again, in my opinion. But there's lots of things evangelicals need to fix, which is the main subject of this blog. The things that don't need fixing are the subject of this post.

For starters, there's the two things that I would say are definitional features of evangelicalism. If you have both of these, you're evangelical, if you have one or less, you're not. Evangelicals believe in the gospel, (the good news of the Bible that, while man was far from God, Jesus Christ came to earth, lived a perfect, sinless life, and died on the cross to pay for our sins) and we believe the gospel needs to be shared. Some people think that's the most annoying thing about us, but just keep in mind we believe that you're cut off from God without Christ, and we just want to share how we've been found. That commitment to sharing the gospel is good point #1. Evangelicals also believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God, without error as it was originally written (which, by the way, doesn't mean it can't be misinterpreted - it just means that's my fault, not God's). That high view of God's Word is good point #2. So those are the core features of evangelicalism, and they're both very good.

Another place evangelicals get it right, in my opinion, is what I refer to as the call to sold out living. Some churches ask that you show up for the service once a week and put some of your money in the offering plate - I don't think God is too enthused with an hour of our week and maybe a few percent of our income. God wants everything - not a dollar amount or a number of hours, he wants every moment, every segment, all of your life to be centered on him. That doesn't mean you do nothing but read your Bible and pray, but it means God has the top spot in your thinking, and your goal in life is to please him by loving and serving the people around you. A lot of evangelical churches fall short on communicating this, but I believe they do a better job of it, more often, than other churches do. The call to sold out living is good point #3.

I believe those are the best features of evangelicalism, but there's more. Evangelicals recognize the important role God has for the family, to train up godly children. Good point #4. Related to that, they're not afraid (well, less afraid, anyway) to express the Bible's clear teaching against divorce, to tell their teens and young adults that God expects them to abstain from sex outside of marriage, and to obsess and demagogue about how homosexuals are destroying the... ok, I'm still giving evangelicals 2/3 of a point here. Because those first two are important, and the Bible is clear that homosexual sex is a sin. But we get no credit for pointing that out because of the unloving way we do it, and the fact that we like pointing it out so much more than the sins we struggle with. So, good point #4 2/3.

Another thing worth appreciating about evangelicals is they take church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17) seriously, and try to follow that passage more often than other churches do. This is important, because sin, in the moment, is lots of fun, which is why God has given us the church to help us keep our heads on straight when we lose our way. When we're weak internally, we need external support, and that's what church discipline is about. We realize that how we live matters, and so we try to help each other live in a way that matters. Good point #5 2/3.

Two more, but I'm feeling wordy, so I'll be brief. Evangelicals tend to give larger percentages of our finances, which is particularly noteworthy because more mainline denomination members tend to belong to higher socioeconomic classes. Good point #6.66. Finally, evangelicals are usually pro-life - there are tremendous problems, distortions, and oversimplifications from both sides of that whole debate, but I believe the right-to-life side is the one to be on. Overall, I give us 7 & 2/3 good points. I'm sure there's more (let me know in the comments), but those are the main reasons I'm a committed evangelical, in spite of the stumbling blocks.