Sometimes I wonder why things are the way they are.  I wonder what events happened in the past that continue to affect us today. I have always been perplexed at the often contentious relationship between science and religion, especially Protestant Christianity. This summer, I spent some time reading about the Protestant Reformation, the Renaissance and the history of science. Certainly I didn’t read everything about each of those topics. And I should be clear; I am not a historian by any stretch of the imagination. (By the way, if you are a historian reading this, please comment with any corrections or additions you think are necessary.)

Here’s the interesting thing I learned; up until the 1500’s concepts about the structureof the cosmos were essentially unchanged and were closely linked with a philosophical/religious viewpoint. Science and religion were not separate disciplines in the way we think about them today.

Until the development of the telescope, what people knew about the solar system was what they saw with their eyes. The sun rose in the east, moved across the sky and set in the west. Everyone could see the sun move. The moon rose and set as well. The stars moved in a regular order. And everything appeared to circle around the earth. No one could demonstrate that the earth moved.

Aristotle reasoned that if the earth moved, object thrown into the air should land in a different location, and he couldn’t demonstrate that. He also reasoned that if the earth moved around the sun, the stars should shift position and to the unaided eye, the stars don’t move. ( The stars do shift position, it’s called stellar parallax, but it can’t be detected with the unaided eye.)

Aristotle also concluded that the objects that moved around the earth, moved in perfect circles. This was a philosophical assumption. Ptolemy developed a model that was more accurate and more complex in its predictions about the movements of the heavenly bodies. But his model was also geocentric, the earth was the center of the cosmos, and everything else revolved around it. Over time, as more accurate observations were made, people realize Ptolemy’s model had problems but no one developed a better model for some 1500 years.

This orderly view of the universe was accepted in Europe at the time of the Reformation. People believed that objects in the sky moved in perfect circles, in an unchangeable hierarchical arraignment. This structure represented God’s perfect will and design. Linear movement and change were signs of imperfection. Above the hierarchically arraigned stars was the home of God. Below the stars were the imperfect moon, and earth. Below earth was the most imperfect place of all, farthest from God, hell.

Because the cosmos was created by God, its order and structure reflected the will of God and this order and structure was also the model for people’s understanding of how human society should be. This worldview valued hierarchy, order and permanence as reflections of God’s will. Even human beings were ordered. People consisted of, in declining order, soul, reason, will, passions, and body. People believed in the ultimate unity of all things, that universal truths existed and could be known. They also believed the ideas and concepts from antiquity were better than “modern” thoughts. Most people believed that society had reached its peak in the ancient world and it had been downhill ever since. And so the end was not far off.

You can imagine this worldview, present for centuries, made acceptance of new ideas difficult. The 16th century for Europe was a time of great change, Europe was moving from feudalism to nations,new lands were being discovered, economies were changing,  and the Reformation challenged religious beliefs. What we might call modern science was beginning also.  All this change, that we might look on as exciting, was anxiety producing for Europeans. Life was unsettled at almost every level. People were unwilling and uneasy about considering ideas that reordered the cosmos. If the cosmos could be reordered, so could human society.

This is, of course, just the barest of sketches about science and religion in the 16th century. It is a complex and fascinating period of history. But even this brief discussion begins to point out a few of the causes of the science and religion “troubles”. Part of being able to resolve a conflict is realizing what started it in the first place.

It seems to me, that the close connection, made for centuries, between the perceived orderly structure of the universe and God’s will for human society set the stage for problems to develop. Science didn’t just challenge the scientific status quo, it challenged the religious and social structure as well. Do we still need to fight a 16thcentury battle with 16th century ideas?

I’d like to know, what do you think?

——————

This is a list of some of the books that shaped this essay. If you have a favorite book on this topic, please share it with the rest of us.

A World Lit Only by Fire:The Medieval Mind and the Reniassance  William Manchester, 1992

The Waning of the Reniassance  1550-1640  William J. Bouwsma, 2000

Theories of Everything: An Illustrated History of Science from the Invention of Numbers to String Theory John Langone, Bruce Stutz, Andrea Gianopoulos, 2006

Interpreting John Calvin, Ford Lewis Battles, 1996.

John Calvin: A sixteenth century Portrait,  William J. Bouwsma, 1988

————

Speaking of how past events affect the present, on a completely different topic-this election year, America’s God by Mark Noll can’t be recommended highly enough. It’s a comprehensive and thoughtful history of the relationship between US politics, history and religion.

What is theology good for?

First let’s be clear on what theology is.

Theology:*

1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

My question concerns primarily the first definition. Of course the second definition is involved because we are each going approach the question from a particular school or point of view. Let’s leave the discussion about the value of religious studies and seminary education for later…much later.

So what’s the point? Why attempt to think rationally about God. Why “study” God? Isn’t experience enough? Certainly the various systems or schools of opinions have caused a lot of problems, schisms, conflict, condemnation, even wars. Why bother? Part of the answer,I think, is because we are creatures that need to organize our ideas- it’s how we make sense of our experiences. But then what do we do with the information? What’s the goal, the end result?

Should we be content with increasing our private understanding and faith?

Should we use the results of our theological study to challenge and change the views of others?

Should theological study only shape and inform our own views?

Or should we use our theological study to challenge and change the world?

To use traditional Christian language; is the point of theology, personal piety, apologetics, evangelism, doctrine, or mission?

Take a moment and consider what you think.

Here is what Douglas J. Schuurman writes in his book, Vocation: Discerning Our Callings in Life,

“The main effort of Christian theology is not to convince atheists or agnostics of the truth of the Christian claims, important as that task may be. Rather, it is to help Christians interpret the world in light of their faith in the God manifested in Jesus Christ, who renews all of creation.”^

I think Shuurman has it right. The reason to study theology; to think about it, talk about it, ponder it, is to help us live more faithfully in the world. To view the world, not in terms of our personal or idenominational or national self interest; but to make meaning of the world in a way that is deeply shaped by our belief in the God who redeems and renews.

In some ways, I gave you a set of false distinctions in the four questions I posed above. They are all a part of what I understand Shuurman to mean. At the same time, they all are ways we miss the mark.

We should of course endeavor to increase our personal faith and knowledge. Without a sincere and personal faith, religion is just an abstraction. Something to think about but not to believe. Prayer, worship, spiritual disciplines are crucial. However if we are only concerned about our private religious experience haven’t we failed to embrace the entire gospel?

Christianity does challenge the views of others. The theologian Leslie Newbigin writes that as Christians our way of living should be a source of curiosity, of interest to others. The way we conduct ourselves in the everyday world should mark us as Christians. Once again we can do this well or poorly. Newbigin doesn’t mean we should spend our days trying to convince others to believe as we do. He suggests the way we conduct ourselves, humbly, with care and concern for those around us, should prompt others to ask questions about why we do what we do and why society promotes other behaviors.

I don’t know about you but I don’t know anyone who has been “talked into” faith. I wonder what the real effect of all the books and websites devoted to apologetics has been. So often the tone is imperious, self righteous and self satisfied. For me it is much more compelling to see someone incarnate, live- albeit imperfectly- their faith. Only then do I have any interest in the beliefs that form them.

Of course we need to know and understand what we say we believe. I suspect this is what most people think about first when they think about theology. Our minds want clarity and order about what we believe. Without careful thought and study we can wonder off into the theological wastelands. We can so easily shift our gaze and confuse God’s will with our own. But at the same time we run the risk of thinking that what we believe is right, that we know God’s mind and heart and will best. And we run the risk of reducing faith to only an assent to a set of doctrines.

Theology as a tool to change the world. Here again there is more than one way to fall off this horse.

If we think our task is to convince everyone to think and act like us, we’re in for trouble. We Christians can’t even agree among ourselves. Here I think the goal of theology is to help us talk among ourselves, to think through what is important and what is not. And then to work for change that improves the world. We are, as heirs of Abraham, to be a blessing for the world (Gen 12:1-3). Our theological convictions should cause us to work for fair housing, adequate health care, nutrition and all the other worthy causes you can add to this list.

Someone asked me once,”How do you know when you’re thinking theologically?”

My reply was,”When your head hurts.”

Because thinking theologically requires us to think deeply and carefully.  We have to think about difficult topics. We have to talk to each other, particularly those who have a different point of view. We have to recognize what we think is right and then be willing to set all that aside. We have to question, question ourselves and what others tell us. And most importantly we must listen. Listen for God and recognize that God speaks to us in a variety of sometimes surprising ways.

I’d like to know, what do you think?

^ Douglas J. Shuurman, Vocation: Discerning our Callings in Life, (Eerdmans Publishing:Grand Rapids MI, 2004),52.

A while ago I went to a talk about animal rights at a Christian college. It was an interesting evening with a Biblically conservative crowd. Most of the people in the audience appeared to be folks who sincerely and wholeheartedly believe Adam and Eve were two real people.

They were also people who are, for the most part, vegetarians or vegans. They believe to treat the earth and animals carefully and respectfully is an important part of being faithful Christians.

Before this night, I would have thought it difficult to fill an auditorium with what one might call Bible believing animal rights activists. Just goes to show how unhelpful labels and stereotypes can be.

This group of people had a difficult time and honestly struggled with the text in Genesis where, after expelling Adam and Eve from the garden, God makes them clothes out of hides. (Genesis 3:21) If you are a vegan, this passage, where God apparently kills an animal for its hide, is a problem. The action of God recorded here, is not consistent with their understanding of who God is and how God acts. How could they resolve this?

As the group talked about this passage someone suggested, perhaps God used the hide of an already dead animal. Someone else proposed that “garments of skin” meant that previously Adam and Eve didn’t have skin as we know it and this is when humans received skin. Yes, someone really said that, and quite seriously too.

My point isn’t to be critical of Biblical literalists or this group of Bible believing animal rights people. My point is just the opposite. Liberal or conservative, Biblical literalist or not, we are all in the same boat. We all have a concept of who God is and how God acts. When Scripture or experiences in real life don’t easily fit into our concept, we have to attempt to reconcile them. We use our culture, our history and our experience to help us do this.  The discussion that took place at the talk that night was a perfect example of this. It’s alright, we can’t help it and it’s a necessary activity. But we do need to be aware of what we are doing.

 When we disagree about the meaning of a passage of the Bible, it’s a difference of opinion. Certainly some opinions are more worthy of listening to than others. Some are more scholarly, some more educated in the school of life. But no matter who we are, no one, no human can interpret perfectly from God’s point of view.

So good for you Bible believing animal rights people. Continue to think and to talk and to wrestle with what it means to be a faithful Christian. We may arrive at different conclusions but we can respect and encourage each other’s journey.

 From Poem of the Day

Sometimes I wonder what, if anything, animals think about us. “An Ox Looks at Man” is one poet’s reflection.

For more about Carlos Drummond de Andrade:

Are you religious or spiritual? It’s a common distinction people make these days. I hope you answered. “both”.

We have a habit of viewing the world through an either/or lens.

• For us/against us,                               
• winner/looser,
• working mom/soccer mom,
• science/religion,
• conservative/liberal,
• blue state/red state.

I’m sure you can think of more. In some ways it makes life simple, everyone and everything is easy to categorize. You are this or you are that.  Making and assigning categories is one of the ways we make sense of the world.

But if we are not careful, we can oversimplify life and we can unwittingly embrace false dichotomies. Plenty of moms work and take kids to soccer games. Not everyone in “blue state” Michigan is a Democrat.

The religious/spiritual distinction is an example of oversimplification and a false dichotomy.The religious/spiritual question is a loaded question. When was the last time you heard someone say, ” I’m religious, not spiritual”?

 ”Religious” tends to stand for everything wrong with organized religion and implies there is nothing good about organized religion. Religion, at worst is the source of all war and corruption, and at best is empty, meaningless conformity. “Spirituality” on the other hand, stands for the true experience of the divine, pure, unmediated, and uncorrupted by “religion”.

Now we all know better than this. Don’t we? “Organized religion” has done a lot of good in the world; caring for people, feeding the hungry, providing medical care and so on. Lots of folks have found great value, support and comfort being part of a community of faith. And just maybe, God was wholeheartedly and sincerely worshiped.

And we can find some “spiritual” folks who have a pretty self  serving and unhealthy spirituality.

Of course there are exceptions to everything I just wrote. Religion and spirituality are complex things and shouldn’t be simplistically reduced into stereotypes. Their complexity makes the statement, “I’m spiritual but not religious” almost meaningless.

It’s a false distinction. We need both religion and spirituality. We get ourselves into trouble when we emphasize one at the expense of the other. David Crumm of Read the Spirit puts it nicely when he says,  ” At ReadTheSpirit, we talk about religion as a revelation to be accepted -– while spirituality is the other strand in the double helix of faith -– a quest to be pursued. And most great faiths involve both strands: Islam has the hajj as well as the Quran, for example.”

It’s a great metaphor, the double helix of faith- revelation to be accepted and a quest to be pursued.

If we’re only or mostly about revelation, faith becomes an intellectual exercise- the task of believing six impossible things before breakfast.

If we’re only about spirituality, faith can collapse into whatever makes me feel spiritual or happy or peaceful.

We need both. Revelation (and the church) to help us keep our focus and the quest to move more deeply into the divine life.

I suppose none of us balances these two things perfectly. Some of us by temperament or culture lean more one way or the other. The key is awareness, noticing when we have over emphasized one at the expense of the other. In my denomination, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), it’s easy for us, given our history and culture to emphasize revelation over spirituality. But in recent years there has been increasing recognition that we need to intentionally pursue the spiritual quest.

” ‘Prayer without study is like a soul without a body’ the rabbis say.”*

Its all about balance isn’t it? And in a culture that encourages and celebrates excess, balance can be hard to achieve.

A monk was asked what they did in the monastery and he answered. “Well, we fall and we get up and we fall and we get up and we fall and we get up.”*

Let’s stop falsely dividing religion and spirituality. Let’s pay attention to the balance in our lives. And when we fall, let’s help each other up.

I’d like to know, what do you think?

The “believing six impossible things before breakfast” statement comes originally from the book Alice in Wonderland. Its use with reference to religious belief comes from John Polkinghorne.

* both quotations are from, The Rule of Benedict: Insights for the Ages by Joan Chittister, O.S.B., pages 117, 99-100.

Recently the New York Times ran a editorial and an article about animal rights, both pieces prompted by Spain’s recent action to grant some legal rights to certain apes.

To talk about animal rights, we must first recognize that the phrase has become a politically loaded term, used in unhelpful ways by extremists. Extreme animal rights activists have from time to time said and done some outrageous things. Anti animal rights extremists have also said and done outrageous things. But as with most volatile issues, if we are willing to tune out the extremists and look past the inflammatory rhetoric, the rest of us can probably find some common ground.

I suspect most of us can agree that the abuse of animals is wrong. Animals in our care should have adequate food, water, shelter and be protected against physical harm. But does habitat destruction- which causes the loss of food, water and shelter- constitute abuse?  Is all human use of land wrong? Or are some human changes to the earth acceptable, even beneficial?

What about experiments on animals? If the outcome of the experiment is the death of the animal, should we allow that? But on the other hand, what if human lives are saved by the research?  How do we understand human life in relation to gorilla life? Or robin life? Or carpenter ant life? Is it even possible for us to objectively decide these things?

So even if we start with common ground, such as the abuse of animals is wrong, the ethical problems become difficult very quickly. This issue requires some careful thinking on our part. We need to do it, the moral and ethical decisions are too important to leave to the extremists. But I don’t think there are clear, simple answers to these ethical problems. Apes may require different “rights” than say lizards. But how do we know?

Historically, what we have “known” about animals has changed dramatically. Only a few hundred years ago, philosophers and scientists seriously debated the question of whether animals could feel pain. We used to think animals couldn’t communicate with each other, couldn’t learn, couldn’t feel emotions. Today we have learned that animals do communicate, learn and feel emotions. In light of our growing knowledge about the lives and experiences of animals, any conclusions we draw today are necessarily provisional. New information will necessitate our continued rethinking about animals and our relationship with them.

Part of thinking this through for Christians involves trying to understand the will of God in all this. At the same time, we need to acknowledge that it is very easy for us to confuse our will with God’s will. We need to think carefully. We need to talk and listen carefully to each other. We need to listen carefully for God.  

Often Christian discussion about our responsibility towards animals centers on the “dominion” command in Genesis 1:26.  Historically dominion belongs to royalty. It implies power and control. In human hands the exercise of dominion has resulted in abusive power and exploitation.

Additionally we humans bear the image of God. In the ancient near east, images of gods were understood to contain in some way some of the characteristics and presence of the god. Christians have understood what it means to bear the image of God in a variety of ways, some helpful, some not so helpful. But mostly we believe that in some way, we are God’s agents in the world. This doesn’t mean that God isn’t involved and has left everything up to us. It does mean than we carry an important responsibility as the image bearers of God.

One of the ways we have missed the mark is that we have used the example of human kings to shape our idea of God. We have chosen a false image to bear. We should look first to the God revealed in Scripture and most importantly for Christians, to God revealed in Jesus Christ.

What does this kind of dominion look like? Its the kingdom where the hungry are fed and the sick are healed. Its the kingdom where the king lives for his subjects. ( John 13:12-16, Luke 22:24-27, among others). Its the kingdom where all of creation can flourish.

When we think about how God is in relationship with us-loving, self giving, self sacrificing - what does mean for our relationship with the rest of creation?  Some major rethinking about our “privileged” status. Some major rethinking about our use of animals. Some major rethinking about the desirability of progress. Some major rethinking about what it means to be the people of God.

 The discussion is beginning. Think about how often we hear and read about green technology, carbon footprints, sustainable energy, organic foods and yes, animal rights. It is important for people of faith, any and all faiths, to be part of the discussion. We need to come to the discussion having thought carefully and theologically. But not to convince everyone else they must follow our religious beliefs. We must do our theological thinking so we understand, as clearly as we can, why the discussion is important and what we have to contribute to the conversation.

I’d like to know, what do you think?

 In some earlier posts, “God and Dog” , “God and Dog and Genesis”  and ” In the Image of God: What it means to be human”, in particular, I also offer some  Christian rethinking about our relationships with animals.

Here’s an interesting Biblical interpretation “fun fact”.

The greatest majority of Protestants in the 16th century thought that the command of Jesus to go and make disciples (Matt 28: 17-20) didn’t apply to them. Jesus was speaking to the apostles and most people thought Jesus’ statement applied only to the apostles. They also believed that since the apostles had done just that, taken the gospel to the all the known world at that time, the commission had been fulfilled.

Additionally evangelism was not believed to be the task of the church or the individual but of the state. Remember in those days in Europe, the religion of the prince was the religion of the people.

By the 1800s Protestants had completely reinterpreted the Great Commission and had developed what Protestants today still, for the most part, believe. We all, individually and corporately, are to spread the gospel. And of course, these days you would be hard pressed to find someone (although I suppose there is someone, somewhere) who believes the religion of the prince should be the religion of the region.

Interesting, isn’t it? What a dramatic re interpretation of a Biblical text. There are historical, cultural and theological reasons for this change in interpretation. It’s a fascinating topic, but too complex for a blog post.

Here’s what I want to consider today.

Are we ever “finished” with the task of Biblical interpretation? Are there parts of the Bible where we can say that we understand exactly and completely what God intends for us to understand?

How do we know when we are finished or not finished with interpretation?

Can our interpretation of Biblical texts change over time?  And if interpretation changes over time does that mean the previous interpretation was wrong? Or can different interpretations be valid at different times and in different cultures?

And of course, the perennial protestant problem, who decides what are the correct answers to my questions?

I can hear some of you now, “Why does this have to be so difficult?” “Why wasn’t God more clear about all this?”

Well, I certainly don’t know. But I do have a hunch. It’s not supposed to be easy. We live in a complex world and God is a complex God. Easy answers are insufficient. But beyond that, it seems to me, the task of Biblical interpretation - like all of Christian life -is by necessity collaborative. We must work together. We must ask God for help. We must be humble. We have to risk being wrong. We have to risk admitting we don’t understand. For Christians how we do the things we do matters.

And our bonus question for today: Are there interpretations of Biblical texts that in our time we ought to rethink?

I’d like to know, what do you think?

The information on early Protestant belief about the Great Commission comes from Alister McGrath’s book, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution-A History From the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First.

Gutenberg Bible

I’ve been reading Alister McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution- A history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first. It’s an interesting book and even though I haven’t quite finished it yet,  it has gotten me thinking about the “dangerous idea”.

The dangerous idea according to McGrath is that “all Christians have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves” (2). McGrath explores this idea historically, looking at the causes and outcomes of the reformation. He also examines how this idea has shaped belief, worship, church polity, the arts and sciences. The last part of the book considers Protestantism in the 21st century and beyond.

As McGrath points out, Protestants decided to prioritize Scripture and individual interpretation partially out of a reaction to church structure and teaching authority. But the move away from giving certain individuals or organizations interpretive authority created a whole other set of problems.

Right from the start of the Reformation there were differences of opinion about what certain passages of Scripture meant.  One of the famous early disagreements, the Marburg Colloquy, was between Luther and Zwingli and their followers over the meaning of “is” in Christ’s statement at the Last Supper, “Take, eat; This is my body.” (Mathew 26:26). Luther believed that Christ’s body is really present in the bread of the Lord’s Supper. Zwingli believed the bread signifies Christ’s body. The problem is, of course, who decides if Luther or if Zwingli is correct?

Simply put, for Protestants differences over interpretation of Scripture resulted in differences in belief and practice. And that divided us into the “too numerous to count” number of Protestant denominations we have to day. It’s a problem we have never solved.

In some respects it is unsolvable. If we believe that all Christians should read and therefore interpret the Bible for themselves, we will have a variety of opinions. If there is no central authority to decide or at least strongly suggest which interpretation is the most appropriate, we are left to persuade each other. And each of us thinks we are right, because we have all thought carefully and worked very hard to be right.  And sadly yet predictably, discussion turns into debate which turns into argument and then a church splits.

So what can we do? It seems to me there are at least a couple of things. The first is to remember, as the reformers remind us, there are a few things central to our faith that we must agree on. At the same time, there are many things not as crucial where sincere, faithful people can have different opinions. In these areas tolerance and respect, not division into factions is what we should do. Of course we have the problem of getting everyone to agree on what is essential and what is not. But remembering and honoring what we hold in common would seem to be helpful, particularly in times of disagreement. I also think we have to be patient, much more patient that we want to be. Moving from disagreement to agreement on issues that are important to us can take time. It also means that we all need to be willing to trust each other. And more importantly to trust That God will be present in the movement from disagreement to resolution.

I would also suggest that being correct is not as important as we tend to think it is. Perhaps what is most important for Christians is not doctrinal correctness but rather loving God and our neighbor. Maybe part of the work of the church is to figure out how to live together in spite of disagreement. And not just tolerate each other but truly live and flourish together.  We all know it’s one thing to agree we should all get along, and it’s quite another to actually get along. It can be really difficult work. It can be a seemingly impossible task. And yet, more and more, I think it’s important work we are called to do. How do we do this? I don’t know. My church, the PCUSA, has as much trouble with this as anyone. But my hunch is, humility and trusting God is key.

I’d like to know, what do you think? 

For more on Martin Luther, Wikipedia, the Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy, and PBS.

For more on Huldrych Zwingli, Wikipedia, The Columbia Encyclopedia, and Christian History and Biography

For more information on the Marburg Colloquy, including some interesting eyewitness accounts go here on the  CCEL site.

For a Presbyterian suggestion on resolving church conflict click here.  Please feel free to share your church’s way of resolving conflict and disagreement with the rest of us.

Sometimes it is helpful to think about familiar things using unfamiliar language or concepts. That exercise can help us see things in a different and sometimes helpful way. Today I am suggesting we consider the concept of models. I’m not talking about model planes but rather models in the way science uses them. And I’m not saying that we should try to use scientific techniques to prove that God exists. But the way scientists think about and use models can, I think, be helpful as we think about and talk about God.

There is actually quite a lot that can be said about the various uses of models in science. For our purposes here, just a few concepts about models are important. Models are an attempt to describe something. Often a model is a simplified version the the thing being described. Dividing a complex thing into smaller parts and using models can help us understand how the more complex thing works. So for example, remember the solar system models from school? They show the big items, the sun and the planets, and they show that the planets revolve around the sun. But they don’t show every object in the solar system and the orbits in the model are not exactly like the actual orbits of the planets. Also the relative distances are not to scale. Still we all learned important things from this quite useful, if simple model. And as we advanced in our science education we were able to use more complex and detailed models.

Models also help us make predictions. Of course how good the predictions are depends on the complexity and accuracy of our model and the complexity of the system being studied.  Weather forecasters use models to try to understand and then make predictions of a very complex system. 

Remember the classic math problem of two trains leaving the station at the same time, one travels west at 30 mph, the other… you recall how it goes. The point of the problem was to make an accurate prediction of arrival times using mathematical models.

And perhaps most importantly, we need to understand and respect the limits of our models. A model is not the real object. It is a representation of the real thing appropriate to our level of understanding. The physicists I know have a much more complex and sophisticated model of the universe than I do. I need a model with very little… all right, no math. So my model of the universe is quite simplistic. My model doesn’t advance our knowledge of the universe. 

Part of what happens in science is that our models become more accurate and more complex as we investigate and learn. ( All though it is also good sometimes, to keep simple models that work well.) Models can be changed and improved.

What does all this have to do with God? Well, it’s this. All of our best thinking about God, what God is like, what God does, what God wants us to do, all of it is incomplete, insufficient. None of us truly knows everything about God. It’s not possible. It seems to me, all we can do is take the evidence we have and construct our best model.

Thinking about my beliefs about God as models, helps me remember that my conception of God may not, in fact probably is not, totally correct. There are things about God that I can’t know. There are things about God I don’t understand. There are things about God that I only partially understand. My model has limits.

If I remember that all that I know about God is a model, my best but limited attempt to understand God; then I am able to grow in my beliefs. I can recognize a particular part of the model is flawed and I need to rethink it. I can realize a part of my model is insufficient, too small and I need to improve it.  God is not the one who is changing. My ideas, my model can change and I hope improve.

This way of thinking about God helps me retain some humility. It helps keep me open to experiencing and learning new things about God. The language of model is not typically part of our discussions about God. But I find it helpful. Its not the only way to think about God. Its not much help devotionally or in worship for example. But in theological discussions and in Bible study, it can be helpful. It can keep us from mistaking our idea, our model about God for the real God.

I’d like to know, what do you think?

If you would like to read some more about models in science: here’s something from NASA, from (who else?) Wikipedia, Model, and Scientific Modelling and from Western Washington University.

My thanks to Karen Gipson for her comments (in various forums) on the uses of models in science that sparked my further theological reflection.

Here in Michigan, as in some other states, legislation called the “Academic Freedom Law” has been introduced into both the state House of Representatives and the Senate. Please take a moment and read the bill  Its short and mostly free from legal- speak. (its the same in both the Michigan House and Senate. You will need to scroll down to “Senate Introduced Bill” and click on either text or pdf.)

In brief, the bill says “… educational authorities also shall endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum in instances where that curriculum addresses scientific controversies.” The educational authorities “shall allow” and “shall not prohibit” teachers “from helping a pupil to understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.”

At first glance, who wouldn’t want “to help students develop (the) critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens”? But it behoves us to use our critical thinking skills as we consider this legislation.  Personally, I have a couple of questions about this bill.

Why do we need this legislation? If this Grand Rapids Press article is correct, the Michigan Education Association says there is no problem. I don’t know about your state, but here in Michigan our legislators have plenty of real issues to consider. Do we really need legislation that addresses non existent problems?

Why does this bill only address the science curriculum? If academic freedom is important in the teaching of science, isn’t it also important for other subjects? Don’t the teachers of other academic subjects warrant the same protection? Or does this proposed legislation have another purpose?

Well, dear readers, I’m afraid this legislation does have another agenda.  Here are press releases from the Baptist Press and the Discovery Institute about the legislation. The Discovery Institute is getting more and more clever about how they phrase their public statements, but as their own web page says, the furtherance of Intelligent Design is one of their goals. 

I’m not interested in wading into the ID/Evolution/Creationism debate today- maybe another time.  Let’s set the discussion about the merits of ID as science aside, as well as discussion about whether any “controversy” concerning evolution actually exists . Today I want to raise some ethical concerns I have.

What logically is the outcome if students are told that there are “challenges” and “evidence against” evolution? Won’t students ask what the evidence is? Won’t they ask what the alternative theories are? Of course they will.  What are the teachers supposed to say? What theory claims to challenge evolution? The fact that the bills don’t mention ID is disingenuous. Even if ID is not mandated by the bill, this bill effectively gets ID into the classroom. Why else would one want to challenge the Theory of Evolution if not to propose an alternative? The claim by the Discovery Institute and its supporters that they are only advocating for more extensive teaching about evolution and not for teaching about Intelligent Design just isn’t credible.

The Discovery Institute is very careful not to align itself with any particular religious group. But you and I both know the most ardent proponents of ID in your hometown and mine are Christians of a particular theological belief. And that’s fine, they are entitled to their belief.

However, I think ethically this approach is, well, unethical . It’s deceptive. It’s a classic example of the sin of omission. Really, it’s just sneaky. And as a Christian, I am saddened and offended. What we say matters.  How we do things matters. How we conduct ourselves in public discussions is important. As Christians, I think we are called to do and be better than this.

I’d like to know, what do you think?