Authentic Means Real

I didn’t enjoy reading this book. The early chapters were slow and strange. The long encounter with God was preachy. The theology was not good.

I didn’t feel attracted to Mack (the main character) at all. He seemed like an airhead with selfish expectations. I know people turn against God in the face of disasters (his daughter is kidnapped and killed) but it has never made much sense to me. I would be glad to go through such a disaster with God, and I feel sorry for those who have to go through them without him. Expectations on God to protect us from the fallen world seem infantile and ungrateful to me. The amazing thing is not that tragedy occurs, but that God is willing to have anything to do with us. Mack’s reaction to revelations from God in dialog are usually bland, uncurious, and dense. He’s mostly a foil, or straight man, for the lines from God.

At the heart of this book is a portrayal of God’s immanence. Young pictures God the Father, as a friendly “very large black woman” named “Papa,” Jesus as a jean-wearing guy who clumsily drops the bowl of sauce and says, “true that,” and the spirit as a partially transparent Asian girl. All three talk in a friendly, familiar way with Mack. The endearing, sometimes almost mushy love these three exhibit is appealing from the standpoint of our relationship with God, and I think this aspect of God is biblical, even if exaggerated in this story.

Unfortunately, God’s transcendence, justice, authority, and truthfulness are lost in this portrayal.

Lack of transcendence

I was uncomfortable with the notion of this large woman representing the Father who, according to scripture, “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.” This is the same God who warned Moses that nobody can see God and live. Immanence is stressed in the Bible through Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but the Father always stands for pure transcendence.

In the Bible, people usually fall on their face when confronted by God. Paul was blind for three days—and these encounters only involved the Son. In The Shack, the relatively irreverent Mac repeatedly throws caustic charges at God the Father:

“How can you say that with all the pain in this world, all the wars and disasters that destroy thousands?”

“But the cost!… It all sounds like the end justifies the means, that to get what you want you will go to any length, even if it costs the lives of billions of people.” 125

One’s credulity is stretched constantly by the plot anyway, but I found my credulity reaching the breaking point with this picture of a man challenging God the Father’s legitimacy and fairness to his face. No sufficient answer is given—just smiling assurances from Papa that it all works out for love.

Lack of justice

The justice of God completely disappears in Young’s portrayal. And for this reason alone, I’m not surprised the book is popular with emergent Christians. I think this is a major theme in emergent theology—they have virtually eliminated justice as an attribute of God. One emergent book after another heaps scorn on any portrayal of God as one who promises death to sinners. This is why so many emergent thinkers have been questioning the penal substitution understanding of the cross of Christ. McLaren and Chalke are completely baffled as to why God would find it necessary to inflict pain on his son. They have both referred to this idea as “cosmic child abuse.” If God wants to forgive sin, they wonder, why doesn’t he just do it? That question makes sense for a human or a God without the attribute of justice. The emergent god is way too nice to do anything like judging people in hell. An all-loving God unconcerned with righteousness and justice would never do something mean like that.

In The Shack, Mack asks Papa whether she is especially fond of all or are there those who she is not especially fond of. She answers,

Nope, I haven’t been able to find any. Guess that’s jes’ the way I is.”

Mack, was interested. “Do you ever get mad at any of them?”

“Sho ‘nuf! What parent doesn’t? There is a lot to be mad about in the mess my kids have made and in the mess they’re in. I don’t like a lot of choices they make, but that anger—especially for me—is an expression of love all the same. I love the ones I am angry with just as much as those I’m not.” 119

Mack is incredulous. Responding to his amazement, papa says,

“I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” 120

In fairness, God doesn’t say sin is okay in this book, but the absence of justice is a glaring flaw. Apparently, we don’t need to be adopted through conversion to become a child of God. All humans are his children, and all entitled to his love as sons and daughters.

Other emergent themes emerge as well. We’ll look at those in our next post.

Filed under : Emergent church, Theology, reconciliation // 2 Comments »

Tags: Emergent church, Justice of God, The Shack, Transcendence of God, William Young

Ever heard this guy before? Mark Driscoll is his name. Take a look at his crazy YouTube video to see what’s coming to the Summer Institute:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSrZVF3FEUQ]

Filed under : News // 1 Comment »

Christine Wicker’s book details numerous serious problems facing the evangelical church today, as explained in earlier posts.
Read Part 1
Read Part 2

One of the most ominous facts she refers to comes from Josh McDowell. Wicker quotes McDowell from his book, The Last Christian Generation, saying. “It has been estimated that between 69 and 94 percent of churched youth are leaving the traditional church after high school, and very few are returning. Furthermore, only 33 percent of churched youth have said that the church will pla a part in their lives when they leave home.”

This is about as bad as news can get. The church is losing its voice with young people more than any others. Why should we be concerned about that? Look at this chart:


As you can see, most people become Christians during their high school and college years. If the church is losing its voice with these people it means we can expect the anemia of recent years to deepen rapidly. This is perhaps the most critical problem the church faces today–how will we develop effective outreach to students, and how can we form communities that they consider cool, spiritual, and nourishing?

Even though Xenos is know as a leader in this area, we too feel the tension. The reputation of Christians are at an all time low with students, especially in college. You can check out our work with 750 university students here.

Filed under : Fall of the Evangelical Nation, Wicker, campus ministry, church growth, church leadership, church ministry, church planting, ingrown church, large churches, ministry, mission of the church, pseudo-growth, purpose of the church // 4 Comments »

Tags: church growth, declining church, Wicker, youth ministry

In the last post, we saw that Wicker’s book raises troubling questions about the continuing viability of the evangelical church in America.

Read Part 1

She’s not the only authority arguing the same case. Professor Alvin Reid shows that at least 41% of Americans are hard-core unchurched (have no clear understanding of the gospel, and have had little or no contact with a Bible teaching church), larger than the number of nominal Christians (30%) or active, participating Christians (29%). ((Alvin Reid, Radically Unchurched: Who they are and how to reach them, (Grand Rapids, Kregel Academic, 2002). He adds that “Of the 350,000 churches in the U. S… less than 1 percent is growing by conversion growth” and “Over the past decade, membership in Protestant churches dropped 9.5 percent, while the U.S. population grew 11 percent.” He thinks, “Most evangelistic methods used today are ineffective in making disciples.”))

Wicker points out that while many believe evangelical are the fastest growing faith group in America, the truth is, “Nonbelievers are the fastest-growing faith group in America in numbers and percentage. From 1990 to 2001, which was the last good count, they more than doubled, from 14 million to 29 million. Their proportion of the population grew from 8 percent to more than 14 percent. That means there are more than twice as many people who claim no religion as there are participating evangelicals” when measured by Barna’s stricter method. 53

Her claim is confirmed by the American Religious Identification Survey: “In 2001, more than 29.4 million Americans said they had no religion - more than double the number in 1990, and more than Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians all added up.”

She shows that the loss of influence is worst among the young. Using Southern Baptist studies, because they keep good records and make them public, she points out that, “In the eighteen-to-thirty-four age group, Southern Baptist baptisms fell 40 percent from one hundred thousand in 1980 to sixty thousand in 2005.”63 Even worse, “The great majority of people being baptized in evangelical churches are already baptized Christians and children.” 93

Whatever growth evangelicalism has enjoyed in recent years is often illusory. Wicker cites a case where “Gallup found 42 percent of Americans calling themselves born again or evangelical in 2003. In 2005, the pollster asked three questions to identify born-agains and evangelicals: 1. Born again experience? 3.Witness for Christ? 3. Bible as literal Word of God? The percentage dropped to 19 percent.” 211

In a hilarious, but all too true section, Wicker gives one of the main reasons for the decline: “As we’ve seen, many churches are training for evangelics. They’re preaching evangelism, They’re pressuring for evangelism. And members are responding. They’re praying. They repenting. They’re feeling guilty, cowardly, and shamed before Jesus… There’s only one thing they’re not doing. They’re not evangelizing, and nobody, not even Jesus, seems able to make them do it. Only half of all born-again adults do any witnessing at all in a year, and what they do they don’t feel good about. Studies show that spreading the Gospel is one of the areas in which Christians …’have the least interest in self-improvement.’” 135

As I note in my book on discipleship, guilt trips are completely ineffective at motivating evangelism. Groups that reach out eagerly and effectively do so because they think it’s fun. Disciples who are properly motivated learn to care about people, learn to make friends with non-Christians, and learn the joy of seeing others come to Christ.

The more churchy a group gets, the fewer non-Christians they see visiting, and the fewer have any interest in returning. Groups that think accommodation (either to western avarice or postmodernism) works fail to see people meet Christ. Groups where people are ashamed of the gospel or the authority of scripture see few come to Christ. The more political a group gets, the fewer converts they see. The more legalistic and narrow groups get, the more they focus on unimportant rules, the fewer converts they see.

Unfortunately these features describe far too many evangelical churches today.

In our last section, we’ll look at one of the most fatal points about the evangelical church in America: their loss of impact on students.

Filed under : Fall of the Evangelical Nation, campus ministry, church ministry, conversions, evangelical church, evangelism, mission of the church // 1 Comment »

As an evangelical leader myself, reading Wicker’s book was not an exercise in edification. But it is a cold dose of reality, and although I don’t believe all her claims, I think the thrust of what she says must be heard. She begins with her thesis:

Evangelical Christianity in America is dying. The great evangelical movements of today are not a vanguard. They are a remnant, unraveling at every edge. Look at it any way you like: Conversions. Baptisms. Membership. Retention. Participation. Giving. Attendance. Religious literacy. Effect on culture. All are down and dropping. It’s no secret. Even as evangelical forces trumpet their purported political and social victories, insiders are anguishing about their great losses, fearing what the future holds. Nobody knows what to do about it. A lot of people can’t believe it. No wonder. The idea that evangelicals are taking over America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history, a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and religious leaders, who understand media weaknesses and exploit them brilliantly. ix

Could this be true? She lays out studies showing the problem is real, mostly from Christian, evangelical sources–Gordon Conwell, Barna, Josh McDowell, Southern Baptist Mission Board, and from some secular, but neutral sources like Pew and Gallup. She, herself, is not neutral. She is a lapsed Baptist who lost her faith in college, like 90% of evangelical children do, according to McDowell. She tries, but fails to conceal her glee over the situation. But I liked the fact that this was coming from a non-evangelical. Do we dare to read what the world thinks of us?

As a non-believer, Wicker is more interested in the issues raised by the Christian right. She portrays the common perception that evangelical churches are growing in America as sort of a plot, or scam, designed to give the right-wing political people more power at election time. I found this part uninteresting and somewhat implausible.

But while I questioned her interpretations at many points, I did not find her main thesis implausible. Our own studies show the same thing. For instance, “The evidence comes from Southern Baptists’ own studies. Only 7 percent of members who’ve been in a Southern Baptist church five years of less are true converts.” 62 We have done studies that show the same thing, and Baptists are generally better than other evangelical churches. In some of our studies of famous churches, the percent that report they met Christ in that church is as low as 3 percent.

She rolls out numerous studies in an interesting way, interspersed with stories of people from both favorable and hostile perspective. She concludes, “The truth behind all these numbers is that evangelicals are not converting and cannot convert non-Christian Americans, especially native-born white people, in significant numbers.” 64 I believe that is as true as any statement in the book.

In a larger view she says, “A small and declining group of people has been portrayed as tremendously powerful and growing so rapidly that they might take over the country—when in fact that number of converts among this group is down and dropping. They are rarely able to convert and , middle-class American. Their share of the population is not 25 percent, but at most 7 percent of the country and falling. All these numbers come from the churches themselves.” 67

What about the reports that 30 or even 40% of Americans are evangelicals? She de-bunks that myth using work again from evangelical sources, including Barna who made that figure popular. His real test for actual believers of a simple list of 9 basic truths shows that the real number of those who believe the Bible at a level that could be considered evangelical is only 7% of the population. Even this crew is suspect. The rest of the so-called ‘born-again’ Christians in America don’t even know what it means. Wicker observes, “The other larger group [the rest of the 40%] comprised evangelicals who were born again but didn’t accept the great majority of the most basic religious tenets that evangelicals are “supposed” to live by. 86 I’ve known this for years. There’s no way most of the people Barna refers to as born-again are true Christians.

One of the biggest questions in my mind as a read this book, just released on April 29, 2008, is whether the evangelical church will be willing to read it. I don’t think so. I predict this book, which should be read by all evangelicals, is destined for the remainder table. Evangelicals have consistently shown no willingness to read anything that suggests their current path might be wrong.

Next: We’ll drill down into some of Wicker’s data for the facts.

Filed under : Fall of the Evangelical Nation, Wicker, church growth, conversions, evangelical church // 11 Comments »

Collins’ theory of “Biologos”

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Collins’ version of theistic evolution should be called deistic evolution. He only allows God a role at the very beginning, setting up the machine at the time of the big bang. Even the arrival of abstract intelligence, morality, and the desire for God were apparently natural developments. ((Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 201. Although he allows that these defy explanation through evolution, he still resists attributing them to God, and maintains that no intervention by God was necessary. He reaffirms this when he describes moral law and desire to know God as gradual, natural developments that could have happened in reptiles if things had gone differently)) God’s role is limited to foreknowing that evolution would take this path. ((Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 205, 207)) His position is even more deistic than Darwin’s own position, because Darwin said: “Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived upon this earth have descended from one primordial form into which life was first breathed by the Creator.” ((Cited in Gleason Archer, Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 195.)) Collins won’t even allow for God launching the first living cells.

Collins’ analysis of why people resist this deistic theory of origins centers on two specious reasons—1) that people don’t like theism associated with evolution, and 2) that they prefer controversy to harmony. I can’t think of anyone who resists deism for these reasons.

The real reason Christians resist deism is biblical authority and sound exegesis. Here, Collins reveals his method again, in a way consistent with his earlier chapters: Genesis 1 and 2 are figurative. Adam and Eve were not the only humans, because of Cain’s wife. Therefore they are probably just a representative story of how people don’t obey God. C.S. Lewis and the Pope agree that the passages should not be taken literally or historically. The lyrical character puts them in the same category as Job and Jonah, which do not carry a “historical ring.” ((Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 209.))

As noted earlier, these verdicts fly in the face of Jesus’ clear teaching that “God said” the things recorded in Gen 2 to Adam. Jesus likened his resurrection to Jonah’s expulsion by the fish. According to this reasoning, if the Jonah story was mythical, Jesus’ resurrection could be mythical also. Paul teaches that just as sin entered through one man, justification entered through one man. Again, if Adam’s fall was mythical, wouldn’t this mean that Jesus’ death and resurrection could be the same? How did the fallen nature pass to other humans? Clearly the Adam and Eve story is impossible if humans evolved in a transitional community of organisms probably comprising thousands of members, as Collins assumes. I hope we all see that viewing humans as the product of evolution alone means the rejection of a literal Adam and Eve. It also offers no adequate explanation for a spiritual nature that would even survive death.

Collins’ view of scripture is completely unacceptable.

On page 83, Collins gives us two choices where Genesis interpretation is concerned: hyper-literal young earth hermeneutics, and non-historical poetic license. His coverage in this section demonstrates no understanding of other interpretive positions. Throughout this section, he shows little depth of understanding either of the interpretive issues in Genesis or of the theological issues raised by his low view of scripture.

Collins stands close enough to biblical faith to be very appealing, especially because of his preeminence in the scientific community. But while learning from his advanced scholarship in genetics, people could also easily buy into his poorly informed views on scripture.

For us, the determining limits to which theories may be accepted should be biblical exegesis. I believe we have no reason to declare which theory or combination is the correct one, only which theories are possible within a biblical framework.

Filed under : adam and eve, biblical inspiration, evolution, francis collins, theistic evolution // 4 Comments »

Read earlier comments in
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Collins on Intelligent Design

Collins’ assumption that scientists would never ignore or marginalize a new view, just because it’s based on theistic assumptions seems quite naïve to me. Why would scientists be any different than other humans? While they may like formulating new theories, adopting a position that would lead to their own marginalization is not likely.

Collins disqualifies ID as science because “A viable scientific theory predicts other findings and suggests approaches for further experimental verification.” But “ID’s proposal of the intervention of supernatural forces to account for complex multi-component biological entities is a scientific dead end. Outside of the development of a time machine, verification of the ID theory seems profoundly unlikely.”13 I think this criticism fails for more than one reason.

First, macroevolution (as I have defined it above) suffers the same criticism as ID. It prescribes no future approach for experimental verification. Experimental verification of natural selection or of genetic mutation is not the same as verification for macroevolution. Faith in macroevolution rests entirely on interpretation of existing data and has never been validated experimentally, or observed.

Second, while we would have to go back in a time machine to verify ID, we would also need one to validate macroevolution. Collins fails to see that believing in a process that has immense gaps in the fossil record, and no explanation for how it began in the first place is no better than believing in a far more plausible explanation, such as intervention by a designer.

I thought his call for ID to give a mechanism for how the intelligence gets into the design was unrealistic.14 This would be nothing but speculation at best. Any number of possibilities could be suggested, but these would probably only be used to ridicule the position. ID is primarily a critique of a pure Darwinian explanation for nature. Collins seems to imply that ID is in the same category as young earthers, but most are in fact Darwinists within limits. The material I have seen is arguing that Darwin’s theory is inadequate to explain all transitions. Most do not deny Darwinian principles across the board.

His arguments that current design in humans is imperfect and flawed, thus making it unlikely they come from God, are very familiar arguments found in enlightenment writings – Darwin, Hume, and others advanced these same arguments, and they have been answered satisfactorily.15 I was surprised to see a theist using these well-known atheistic arguments.

I thought his rejection of Behe’s flagellum argument was unconvincing and rhetorically loaded. He throws in qualifiers like “presumably” such and so could have happened, and admits “we are far from filling in the whole picture (if we ever can),” but on these bases, he concludes “Recent research has fundamentally undercut this [ID] position.”16 The research he mentions did nothing more than suggest a highly speculative possibility without observable backing [that flagella could have been borrowed toxin injectors somehow converted to a completely different function]. How does this fundamentally undercut anything? I thought it highly questionable that an organelle used to inject toxin into other bacteria would spontaneously begin to spin as a means of motility, and thereafter be reproduced for that purpose. I’m sure Behe et al. would point out that this transition would have to happen for all parts of the flagellum in a very short time in order to bestow any enhanced survivability. I can’t believe Collins thinks the matter is closed based on this speculation.

I have never felt that the flagellum and related arguments were the most persuasive part of ID (their work on inorganic evolution is far more convincing, since the mechanisms of mutation and selection are not available as an explanation). But I did not feel that mere resemblance to amino acid sequences in a somewhat similar organelle that had a completely different function could be called “fundamentally undercutting” the flagellum argument.

He also characterizes irreducible complexity as the foundation for ID, and that is inaccurate. That is only one argument use by the group, and in my mind, it is one of the least convincing. The recent discovery that bacteria and viruses can adopt and assimilate loose strands of inter-cellular DNA into their own DNA (not mentioned by Collins) could raise problems for this theory as well.17

He completely fails to deal with their much more substantial work in inorganic evolution. This is a critical shortcoming in his critique. He also fails to deal with Dembski’s analysis of what constitutes evidence of design in nature.

Collins includes a theological critique centering again on the ‘God of the gaps’ complaint dealt with earlier, and a specious claim that ID pictures an incompetent God who needs to intervene periodically to “correct” his shortcomings in previous creation. Neither of these was convincing.
The reasons for progressive creation would not need to be correcting errors or deficiencies. Anyone who has added to his garden during successive years understands why the creative work done last year may be supplemented without any suggestion that the previous work was mistaken. The pleasure of creating is reason enough for a creative being to act. For all we know, progressive acts of creation may have been appropriate because conditions were developing on the planet during long intervals that made further advances possible. There could be other reasons. This critique is an interpretation loaded with negative assumptions not based on any evidence. It is also possible that natural selection and mutation are incapable of developing beyond certain inherent limits.

Collins is completely negative about ID. He predicts it is a ship headed for the bottom of the ocean.18 I thought he gave no adequate basis for this caustic assessment. Young people in our church have supplied me with evidence that in recent months, weblogs and other groups discussing science and Christianity have suddenly shifted from favoring ID to declaring it now “disproven,” that “it sucks,” and “is stupid.” I think Collins’ very popular book is having a dramatic but unwarranted impact.

Next time: Collins’ “Biologos” theory

13. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 187.

14. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 187, 188,

15. Gleason Archer, Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974) on Genesis.

16. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 192.

17. Laurie Garrett, The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases In a World Out of Balance, (New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994).

18. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 195.

Filed under : Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Collins’ work on biblical exegesis

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3

Collins says, “The concern about not accepting liberal interpretations of biblical texts is understandable.”8 But he also says, “…parts of the Bible, such as the first few chapters of Genesis, the book of Job, the Song of Solomon, and the Psalms, have a more lyrical and allegorical flavor, and do not seem to carry the marks of pure historical narrative.”9 He adds, “to most other interpreters throughout history, until Darwin put believers on the defensive, the first chapters of Genesis had much more the feel of a morality play than an eyewitness report on the evening news.”10 His view here only reflects Roman Catholic allegorizing during the medieval period, which was not only applied to these passages but to most historical narrative in the Bible. Allegorical hermeneutics were rejected well before Darwin by evangelical interpreters, and for reasons different than that assumed by Collins.11

These statements clearly signal that Collins has a view of scripture deemed unacceptable to the vast majority of evangelical scholarship and contrary to our own statement of faith. During the 1980’s hundreds of the top scholars in the evangelical world came together to clarify what evangelical views on biblical authority should entail. They developed the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics,” which is the clearest formulation of the evangelical view in this area. Notice these articales that are violated by Collins’ statements (key phrases that I think are denied are in bold):

Article VI.

WE AFFIRM that the Bible expresses God’s truth in propositional statements, and we declare that biblical truth is both objective and absolute. We further affirm that a statement is true if it represents matters as they actually are, but is an error if it misrepresents the facts. (Collins thinks they are still true even though they make claims that were wrong.)

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study.

WE DENY that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual. (The early chapters of Genesis present themselves as factual, but Collins says they are symbolic.)

Article XV.

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. (such as allegory, which Collins likes.)

Article XX.

WE AFFIRM that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.

WE DENY that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.

Article XXII.

WE AFFIRM that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.

WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
Also note these statements from the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:”
(Collins directly rejected this position.)

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
(Collins directly rejected this position.)

Article XII.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

[Their point here is that we begin with exegesis and determine the limits allowed. THEN we go to science as it stands today to see what is more or less likely within those limits. The wrong approach would be to reach conclusions via science, and then make scripture fit that conclusion—which is exactly the approach Collins takes when he dismisses Gen 1-11 as history. – Dennis]

Article XVI.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.
(Collins directly rejected this position.)

Article XVIII.

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads or relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims of authorship.
(Collins did exactly this in his argument.)

I think Collins’ approach to scripture violates all of these statements, and is completely unacceptable for Bible believers. Such a view could prove a stumbling block to the weak and unlearned.

Jesus and Paul affirmed that the early chapters of Genesis were historical and factual. Remember that our information on Adam and Eve, and the fall of the human race are contained in these “allegorical” and “morality play” chapters. This is why evangelicals believe these chapters are historical, not a defensive reaction to Darwin.

Since Collins’ method emanates from a base that is not constrained by a high view of scripture, his method is faulty. Therefore, we must be very careful about accepting his views based on that method.

Contrast his view of scripture with his view of science:

“Science is progressive and self-correcting: no significantly erroneous conclusions or false hypotheses can be sustained for long, as newer observations will ultimately knock down incorrect constructs.”12

I think Collins’ faith in science is extreme and unwarranted. Critics of scientism like Kuhn have demonstrated multiple cases where exactly what Collins thinks could never happen has happened (see his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Collins’ faith in science contrasts strongly with his lack of confidence in scripture, and calls further in to question his underlying assumptions and methods.

Next time: Collins on Intelligent Design

8. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 175.

9. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 175.

10. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 175.

11. See this author and Gary DeLashmutt’s explanation in “Hermeneutical Systems.”

12. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 58.

Filed under : apologetics, evolution, francis collins, inspiration, language of god, science and scripture // Add Comment »

We have considered Francis Collins’ views on the ‘God of the gaps’ argument and his views on the fossil record in
Part 1
Part 2
Now we consider his work on:

Interpreting molecular similarities

Collins shows compelling evidence for similarity between human and mouse DNA, even in non-functional sections. His conclusion is that such similarity denotes common ancestry. But while similarity could denote a common ancestor, it could also denote a common maker. Is it reasonable to assume that God would start from scratch every time he introduced a new order of organisms (assuming this happened)? Or would he begin with existing forms, and alter them in meaningful ways to produce the new order? I don’t know how we could answer these questions. Clearly, if the notion that God periodically introduced new forms is true, the evidence suggests that he used existing forms as templates from which to build the new forms. This could explain the data just as well as evolution.

As an analogy, consider the way programmers produce a new computer program. They normally do not begin from scratch, but use helpful strings of code from previous programs they have written for various functions. Likewise, a Bible teacher will commonly include illustrations and arguments he has used in earlier teachings when constructing a new one. These similarities don’t imply that the new program or teaching sprang from the former, but that the creator of both used existing material combined with new material to produce the new creations.

Collins admits that these similarities are only found “over substantial stretches” and “in some instances.” ((6 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 134.)) He also concedes that, “one might argue that the order of genes is critical in order for their function to occur properly, and therefore a designer might have maintained that order in multiple acts of special creation.” ((7. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 134, 135.)) But he feels that, “there is no evidence from current understanding of molecular biology that this restriction would need to apply over such substantial chromosomal distances.” In other words, the similarity of sequence is longer than necessary for the functions involved. But this observation doesn’t rule out the use of even relatively long similar chains by a designer. It only shows that such borrowing would not be necessary as far as we know.

He concludes: “this kind of recent genome data thus presents and overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo.” I think this conclusion is warranted. But it may be a bit of a straw-man as well. Only extreme creationists continue to hold that all species were specially created. I fail to see why believers would argue this extreme position. However, the genome data do not present an overwhelming challenge to the view that God engaged in multiple creative acts at various points, combined with evolution.

Next time: Collins’ work on biblical exegesis.

6. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 134.

7. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, 134, 135.

Filed under : apologetics, evolution, francis collins, inspiration, language of god, science and scripture // Add Comment »

Read Part 1
In part 1, I argued that Francis Collins’ warnings against any “God of the gaps” argument are overdone. If God has ever acted in supernatural ways, there would be gaps. Also, secular science has it’s own imaginary phenomena to explain gaps. This time we examine his work on the fossil record.

Macroevolution and the fossil record

Collins’ rejection of the distinction between macro and microevolution (p. 132) is based on an overly narrow definition of microevolution. I agree that Christians often err here, by claiming that no new species have appeared through evolution. The evidence is good that many species are the result of evolution. I have always held that in the expression, “after its own kind,” (Gen. 1) the word ‘kind’ is not defined. It could mean species, genus, family, or even phyla or something larger. I also agree with Collins that the idea of macroevolution has no clear definition and is therefore a somewhat vague concept. But I think it is still useful for declaring that evolution has some limits in what it can explain. “Reproducing after its own kind” has to mean something. The rules of exegesis say you can’t just ignore language that doesn’t fit your theory. If the amoeba gave rise to humans, then what does “reproducing after its own kind” mean? The phrase seems to be saying there were limits within which organisms reproduce. If not this, what does it mean?

Fossils

Collins never adequately addresses the larger question of jumps in the fossil record. Even the discovery of some possible transitional forms (where formerly there were none) cannot be reasonably extrapolated to mean that all missing transitions will eventually be found, or that they once existed, but were never preserved in the fossil record. This is a faith position without observable backing. It fills the gaps with imagined fossils that have never actually been seen. It also fails to speak to the stability of species in the fossil record, where most species appear relatively suddenly, stay very stable throughout their history (except for minor changes like size) and then often disappear. This picture does not fit Darwinian assumptions. Think of the famous case of the horse. The changes seen in the fossil record are basically a change in size, which is qualitatively different than the kind of changes one would need to see in order to demonstrate macro-evolution.

Collins’ proposition (that transitions may have occurred during periods when fossils were not deposited) means that such suspensions in fossil deposition would have to happen worldwide even in very different sedimentary strata, deposited in different ways. For instance, some are deposited by oceans, some by rivers, and some fossils come from animals trapped in tar pits or amber, to name a few. These would all have to suspend fossil making for many millions of years at the same time in order to explain why the discontinuous layers we have are really continuous and relatively constant in rate of change, as predicted by Darwin. Why would this happen? I think this is a huge leap of faith, and even atheist paleontologists like Gould use this same data to back up the need for punctuated equilibrium (which is leap of faith in itself).

The last research I did on this about three years ago indicated that only a handful of debatable links have been found, and that thousands of gaps remain as striking as ever. Robert Carroll observes recently in Nature, “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” (Carroll, Robert L., “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.) Even in cases where possible transition fossils have been discovered, they are usually far distant from either the parent line, or the line they are supposed to explain, and authorities disagree on whether many of them are really transitional forms at all.

His efforts to argue that fossils are rare and the record extremely fragmentary is unconvincing. At every geological period, millions and even billions of fossils survive. The problem (not acknowledged or discussed by Collins, except in the case of the Cambrian explosion) is that strata containing abundant fossil remains from entire new orders lie immediately adjacent to strata containing none of these organisms or anything similar. This widespread phenomenon remains a major problem for Darwinian theorists. Collins’ general statements about the difficulty of making fossils did nothing to answer this problem. Of course only a minority of organisms are ever preserved in fossil form. But as anyone who has studied fossils knows, this minority still usually numbers in the millions for most categories.

I believe his claim that the former view (that there were huge gaps all over the place) has now been refuted, is wrong. Authorities writing recently still argue that most significant gaps remain. The sudden appearance of new phyla, genera, and families is remarkable today as it has been. The only place I have seen such sweeping claims that the problems with fossils are not in the past is on atheist websites with low credibility.

Collins does not demonstrate careful study of the fossil record (geology and paleontology are not his area of expertise), and this is a serious weakness in his argument. Fossils remain the only truly objective, empirical data we have for what actually happened. Mathematical extrapolations from genetics does not stand, in my view, at the same level of credibility as the actual history as seen in the fossil record.

I admit that an explanation could conceivably be found one day for the discontinuities in the fossil record. But I believe the evidence today still conforms to a picture of periodic dramatic changes in plant and animal populations, and these are used to date sedimentary strata, because other strata are missing these forms. This picture is not easily explained by pure natural selection, and could indeed represent creative episodes where God intervened.

Read Part 1

Next time: Collins’ work on interpreting DNA similarities and his biblical exegesis.

Filed under : apologetics, evolution, francis collins, inspiration, language of god, science and scripture // 2 Comments »