VOX CLARA THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW ON
C L I M AT E C H A N G E P LU R A L I S M E V O LU T I O N AND MORE
FALL 2019
CONTENTS 3 About Vox Clara 4 Editor's Note, Dorothy Kang 6 Sustaining Our Stewarded Earth, Elise Miller 14 At Most One Religion is True, Glen Davis 17 Silence and the Christian Heart, Thomas Colburn 20 Healing in Homes, Dan Thomas 22 Evolution and God are Compatible, Delong Meng 26 Staff 27 Next Steps
2
ABOUT VOX CLARA OUR MISSION Vox Clara is a journal of Christian thought at Stanford, dedicated to fostering meaningful conversations in light of faith and reason. We seek to provide a forum for Christians and non-Christians at Stanford to engage in dialogue related to Christianity, culture, and life's biggest questions. We believe it is important to address issues of faith in the university community. As Jane Stanford’s words on the wall of Memorial Church attest: “There is no narrowing so deadly as the narrowing of man’s horizon of spiritual things. No worse evil could befall him in his course on earth than to lose sight of Heaven. And it is not civilization that can prevent this; it is not civilization that can compensate for it. No widening of science, no possession of abstract truth, can indemnify for an enfeebled hold on the highest and central truths of humanity. ‘What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?’”
THE AUGUSTINE COLLECTIVE Vox Clara is part of the Augustine Collective, a network of student-led Christian journals on college campuses throughout the United States and the UK. There are over thirty journals to date, all committed to the premise that faith and reason belong together. For more information, see augustinecollective.org.
THE NICENE CREED We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
3
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR Dear Reader,
We are a team of students passionate about fostering a dialogue at Stanford about the spiritual aspect of our lives just as we think, discuss, and grow in the intellectual, emotional, physical, and vocational aspects of our lives. Spirituality is generally brushed aside as an optional accessory—usually heard along the lines as "it's just not for me." However, it is inevitable that we will all have to confront life's biggest questions at some point: What is the meaning of life? What or who do I live for? What will happen when I die? For most, these existential questions seem too far removed from our present and tangile issues (aka simultaneously finishing psets, studying for midterms, and securing a summer internship) to think about them seriously. But if we are serious about living a meaningful life, which is so highly valued by our generation, now is the time to dig deep and uncover answers to these questions. And there are answers. Christianity is not a religious list of do's and dont's but a wildly beautiful, rich, and deep story that answers these questions with overwhelming evidence, reason, and faith. This issue does not directly answer these questions but will shed light on how a deeply rooted faith powerfully shapes and informs an individual's understanding of the world, those around them, and themselves. We hope this issue encourages you to reflect on your own beliefs, worldview, and aspirations which can empower you with a sense of direction and purpose going forward. We also hope this issue engages you to see how faith and reason do in fact go together. We would love to talk about life and your questions with you. You can find us weekly in Old Union and we welcome you. Warmly,
Dorothy Kang Dorothy Kang Editor-in-Chief
4
5
6
Sustaining our Stewarded EARTH Elise Miller
God's craftmanship is a world cherished by its maker, and its life and vitality bring honor to God. The tiniest, shivering sparrow the LORD covers with watchful protection1; the fragile flowers of the field the LORD clothes with glory and beauty.2 The Creator does not disregard even the minutiae of creation that are laden with divine fingerprints, and the very sky in the dignity of its existence brings witness to God’s craftsmanship.3 It is a world cherished by its maker, and its life and vitality bring honor to God. Christians believe God has given humanity His Word in Scripture to know Him more fully, and these texts also tell us about the beauty, honor, and meaning of our life-filled world. However, despite hundreds of references to nature throughout Scripture, including affirmations of its practical and inherent value, declarations of its beauty and witness to the Creator, incorporation into covenantal practices, spiritual symbols, and commandments to tend creation, the collective environmental ethic of Christians today—especially in the United States—is muddy. What contributes to this lack of clarity, and how can we view these complexities in light of core beliefs about the nature of God and the purpose of creation? Genesis relays God’s most direct mandate to humankind regarding creation, and the language has been used to justify exploitation as well as stewardship. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it,” God charges, “and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth”.4 Historically
7
in this country, having “dominion” has been entangled with a colonial mindset of control, superiority, and ownership. This interpretation has centuries-old roots. Fire-and-brimstone action-promoting sermons of the early New England colonies blended with the Enlightenment view of nature as an “inferior material world” and an imperialist paradigm of domination over wilderness, leading to rapid expansion and exploitation of nature and existing people on lands across the continent.5 American settlers saw the “wilderness” of the “frontier” as a promise to conquer in a narrative of manifest destiny and in the process destroyed communities and threatened habitats.6 But this is neither a full nor accurate picture of the Biblical mandate. In Genesis 2, the Creator and original gardener creates beings in His image and passes to them the creative task of caring for—not suppressing—His creation. God gives humanity the task of gardening, with the charge to “work” and “keep” the garden. Interpreting “dominion” as exploitative subjugation is inconsistent with teaching about the purpose of creation. Scripture teaches that creation is not ultimately for us. Rather, it is for God: “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him”.7 King David, who knew firsthand the meaning of rule, sings, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein”.8 He does not claim ultimate ownership of his own land but declares that all of nature belongs to God.
If the majesty of creation brings glory to its Creator, mistreating nature and allowing it to suffer degradation robs the Creator of glory. We see the principle of God’s ultimate ownership fleshed out in the Parable of the Talents, in which a man gives his property over to his servants to cultivate for a time.9 When the servants are diligent and return interest on their entrustments, the man commends them for their work. Harsh consequences await the servant who neglects his entrustment. The task of the servant was not to hijack the man’s possessions for himself, but rather to add value to them. This, Jesus tells his listeners, is a picture of God’s kingdom. Humans are but temporary stewards of the garden of Earth. Increasing its flourishing and quality is praiseworthy, while impoverishing it is a grave failure to complete our entrusted task. If the majesty of creation brings glory to its Creator, mistreating nature and allowing it to suffer degradation robs the Creator of glory. Lest humanity boast of its position
8
of authority over creation, other passages teach us that we are like vulnerable sheep in need of the guidance of a shepherd. Surrounded by the Shepherd’s creation, the green pastures and the still waters, the sheep finds peace.10 When Christians consider what it means to have dominion over creation, we ought to think about what kind of a rulership we intend to model. How does our interpretation and practice of rule signal to others what we believe about the character of the King we serve? We ourselves are reflections of the Creator: “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do”.11 The verse is part of a longer passage about how God’s gift of grace releases us from the grip of pride. Humility and service are hallmarks of Christ-like rule. This kind of humility also positions us to recognize and understand God’s rule over nature, in part through the natural law God has authored. God has given humanity the ability to see glimpses of His personality through the things He has made and the laws He has set in place to sustain them. Fifth century Christian theologian Augustine writes that all people have access to knowledge of the natural world through “reason and experience” and can come to hold this knowledge with “certainty,” without the use of Scripture.12 The “reason and experience” involved in application of the scientific method gives us an approximate understanding of the natural world—one that is constantly being refined. In this way, scientific knowledge declares the glory of the One behind the universe’s existence. How we approach science as Christians is an answer to the question, “Is the universe, at its core, understandable? Is our God a God of truth and revelation?” Science offers much insight on how we best interact with the world around us. It tells us how pollution of water, air, night skies, and soil damages the living things that depend on these environments and injures people who live nearby. It shows us how taking too much – too many fish, too much water, too many trees – depletes the environment beyond what it can replenish. It reveals the consequences of lives of excess and the pressure on lands and communities around the globe caused by growing appetites for an abundance of things, whether clothing, electronics, plastic, beef, or on-demand produce. It also gives us stories of hope – how we can protect the tapestry of species on Earth, restore habitats that had once been lost, cultivate vibrant and fruitful environments, and use nature and technology to heal wounds and diseases. The most sobering knowledge science gives us is how the high consumption of energy over the past decades is changing the environments that our own brothers and sisters around the world rely on, as do so many of God’s creatures. As global temperatures increase and we continue to break heat records, melting ice, shifting seasons, droughts, floods, and changing ocean environments are felt the most by those who rely directly on their surrounding environment for food and water. Some of these changes are not, scientists are concluding, incremental.
They seem to happen in leaps as thresholds are reached within ecosystems. Many Christians have complex reactions to climate change. It’s often a topic that makes us uncomfortable. Is it really possible to fail our mandate to care for the Earth in such a significant way? Isn’t God in control of all things? Won’t tomorrow “worry about itself ”?13 While it may be difficult to wrestle with the notion that our activities have damaged the garden of Earth, that does not mean that human-caused climate change is a false conclusion. With royally derived authority over creation comes royal responsibility as well as the potential to royally mess things up.14 Scripture teaches us that humanity’s disobedience against God can and does manifest as degradation of the Earth. From Paul’s letter to the Romans, we learn that not only humans, but also all of creation has been “groaning as in the pains of childbirth” in wait of redemption.15, 16 In the world there are many examples of human-caused suffering, many of which have disproportionate impacts on marginalized people and communities. That doesn’t mean we are powerless in the face of it. James writes that “pure and faultless” religion includes looking after “orphans and widows in their distress”; that is, to care for the vulnerable and ease suffering where possible. How much more does our obligation extend if it is, in part, our own actions that have contributed to the distress? Some Christians may read Christ’s command to not be “anxious about tomorrow” as reason not to be bothered by growing environmental problems.13 But the end of the verse gives context: “Today’s trouble is enough for today.” Climate change and broader environmental concerns are an example of a trouble for today. Humans are in a unique position to intervene, and we have a tremendous capacity to minimize and mitigate the effects of climate change and stop the processes that contribute to it. The sooner we act, scientists agree, the more effective and efficient our actions will be.17
HUMANS ARE IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO INTERVENE, AND WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS CAPACITY TO MINIMIZE AND MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE... While Christians span a broad political spectrum, some also find the stereotypical association of climate change with liberal politics to be a stumbling block. It’s instructive to recognize that value of the environment crosses party boundaries, and that conservation is also a conservative value. Former President Theodore Roosevelt created the United States Forest Service and placed 230 million acres under public protection. George H. W. Bush signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and he established the first cap-and-trade program to prevent acid rain.
In another passage of Scripture often discussed in relation to climate change, God promises Noah that there will never again “be a flood to destroy the earth”.18 Some Christians believe that this means God would not allow the extreme weather events and significant sea level rise that scientists predict, and similarly, some argue that if climate change is truly a problem, God will fix it.19 But Scriptures also give us the story of Job, who believed he was in a position to understand what God would or wouldn’t, and should or shouldn’t do, and in Job chapters 38-41 we are given the LORD’s authoritative response. The power, will, and plans of God do not let us off the hook. Rather, God uses humans to carry out his will20 and expects us to follow his commandments and his lead.21 In line with this understanding, other Christians identify a different message within the story of Noah: God gave humans the honor and responsibility of preserving biodiversity and protecting the future of other creatures, in spite of the mess human actions had brought upon the Earth. This serves, for example, as the inspiration for the work of Christian charity Operation Noah to inspire action on climate change.
9
Some Christians express the need for more evidence before taking action. The desire to seek out evidence is good and right. In this case, evidence of human-caused climate change and the need for intervention has increased rapidly over the past years and is now extremely robust. Evangelical Christian and climate scientist Dr. Katharine Hayhoe sits on a national climate science panel convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that published “What We Know: The Reality, Risks, and Response to Climate Change.” It is a short, readable summary of what scientists have discovered and is a good place to start learning. Public discourse on the topic often lacks the thoughtful conversations required for efforts to be effective on a large scale. For Christians skeptical about climate change, it can be helpful to do a thought experiment: what are the implications of climate change that are uncomfortable or unacceptable in relation to my values? The root cause for discomfort may not necessarily be the evidence itself, but rather what the evidence, if true, would mean. Scientists who want to build dialogue can consider the same questions in relation to those with whom they are interested in engaging. For instance, perhaps addressing climate change would require a level of government involvement that some feel is inappropriate. For those interested in catalyzing action to address climate change, it is critical to understand these concerns, work to find points of connection, and recognize different systems of knowing. For instance, a marine biologist wanting to promote ocean health among the general public and in particular among Christians might consider engaging discussion on the significance of water and oceans within the Christian faith. Constructive conversations spring from common ground, and where common ground is not evident, dialogue requires creating spaces in which everyone involved knows that their perspectives and values are understood. Scientists of faith have a special privilege to serve as bridges, connecting their faith communities through common beliefs and sharing a way of knowledge that stems from curiosity and joy over what God has made. Meanwhile, they can connect with scientific communities through the desire to know the universe for the enrichment of society and help scientists build meaningful and respectful dialogues. For the Christian community, interpreting humanity’s role in creation involves returning to core beliefs about the purpose of creation, commandments and promises made to humankind, and the character of God. Pope Francis inspired and challenged Christ followers around the world in Laudato Si’, a 2015 encyclical on environmental stewardship.22 Many faith-based organizations have gained a powerful voice on behalf of the environment and people impacted by environmental damage: Jesus People Against Pollution, the Evangelical Environmental Network, Creation Justice Ministries, Interfaith Power and Light, Lutherans Restoring Creation, and the RENEWAL Project, to name a few. During an internship for the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science this summer, I was introduced to another Christian response to climate change: a 2011 National Association of Evangelicals publication entitled, “Loving the
10
Least of These: Addressing a Changing Environment.” It is a collaboration of leaders and academics from Wheaton College, Compassion International, Evangelical Environmental Network, and other institutions, offering a tender, respectful, and thorough treatment of a Christian ethic to address climate change and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities throughout the world. It is the best short resource I can recommend offering Christian and scientific perspectives on the reality of climate change, its impact on God’s image bearers, the urgency of action, and concrete strategies for addressing the issue. What does stewarding the environment look like in practice? It is a collective effort, and no one person can do everything. But we can have confidence in the ability of our actions, and most powerfully, our contagious example, as living with integrity in word and deed to the best of our abilities (transparently—we’re not perfect!) in our own spheres of influence. For example, we can lead in efforts to treat God’s image bearers and creation ethically by buying products where we know how workers, lands, and animals are treated23 and by working for more protection under the law. We can prioritize sustainability in our purchases24 and move from excess and waste to moderation and an emphasis on gratitude. Churches can lead the way by modeling efficiency and giving things new life: purchasing goods secondhand where possible, switching from Styrofoam cups to reusable, recyclable, or compostable options where available (and actually composting them!). We can find ways to increase our energy efficiency and either supplement with or switch to non-polluting energy sources.25 We can reclaim time or save money by carpooling, biking, or using public transit. Additionally, we can support the efforts of other community and political leaders to address these issues. As Christians, we are to be neither overwhelmed nor complacent. Instead, we are called to be thoughtful, active, and giving. We ought to prayerfully consider the needs of our environments, our gifts, and how God may see fit to use us to answer our own prayers. Whether we are scientists, laypeople, or clergy, we have the opportunity to honor one another and build a spirit of diligence and hope. Wrestle with these things, meditate on them, ask for wisdom, for healing, for guidance, and recognize that our worldwide community is much bigger and more powerful and more capable than we are ourselves alone. We share this planet, and as we create a path forward, we will do well to share our knowledge and our willingness to learn. Matthew 10:29. Matthew 6:28. 3 Psalm 19:1. 4 Genesis 1:28. 5 Opie, John, and Norbert Elliot. “Tracking the Elusive Jeremiad: The Rhetorical Character of American Environmental Discourse.” In The Symbolic Earth: Discourse and Our Creation of the Environment, 9. Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 1996. 6 Ibid. 7 Colossians 1:16. 8 Psalm 24:1. 9 Matthew 25:14-30. 10 Psalm 23. 11 Ephesians 2:10. 12 Augustine, quoted in Catherine Baker, James B. Miller, Editor, 2006. The Evolution Dialogues: Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding, 41. 13 Matthew 6:34. 14 Psalm 8:6-8. 15 Romans 8:22. 16 This is an echo of Isaiah 24: “The earth dries up and withers, the world languishes and withers, the heavens languish with the earth. The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant” (vs. 4-5). 17 AAAS Climate Science Panel. “What We Know: The Reality, Risks, and Response to Climate Change.” American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2014. 18 Genesis 9:11. 19 The current rate of sea level rise is 3.2 mm per year, and this is expected to increase. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-levelrise-accelerating/ 20 Hebrews 10:36. 21 Luke 9:23. 22 https://laudatosi.com/watch 23 See Ethical Food Initiative certified brands (https://equitablefood.org/consumers/); certifications such as Rainforest Alliance Certified, USDA Organic, and Bird-Friendly (coffee certification with rigorous habitat standards); and Certified Humane products (https://certifiedhumane.org/takeaction-for-farm-animals/shop-2/) 24 For sustainably sourced varieties of fish, see Seafoodwatch.org 25 Energy sources that do not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere may even be more cost-effective than conventional sources, and the cost is continuing to decrease: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/; https://www.irena.org/ publications/2018/Jan/Renewable-power-generation-costs-in-2017 1 2
Elise Miller is a campus ministry associate at Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship. She completed her M.S. in Earth Systems and specializes in conservation agriculture systems and community partnerships. Miller is excited about science-and-faith dialogues, science education, food systems, and nature writing. In her spare time, she sings with a "long distance barbershop quartet" from San Antonio, TX.
11
AT MO RELIGI GLEN DAVIS
R
eligious pluralism comes in two forms: the fact and the philosophy. The fact of pluralism is undeniable – there are many religions in the world, and they all must get along somehow. The philosophy of pluralism, on the other hand, teaches that the various religions are all paths to ultimate reality, that they are really saying the same thing in different words. Is this plausible? Consider the four major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Between them they account for around 80% of the global population. Other faiths are much smaller. For example, although Judaism is of massive historical significance and contemporary relevance, it accounts for less than 1% of the world’s population. Philosophical pluralists often profess confidence in whatever truths all the religions hold in common. Sadly for pluralism, one of the truths the four major religions hold in common is that not all religions are correct. Comparing Christianity and Islam we see that the rejection of other religions as legitimate paths is explicitly stated in their sacred scriptures. In the Bible, Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.1 And two of Jesus’ followers explained it this way shortly afterwards, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved”.2 In the Qu’ran we read, “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers”.3 And in Surah 9:30 we see the specific rejection of both Judaism and Christianity: “And the Jews say: Uzair [Ezra] is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” More passages could be adduced from both the Bible and the Qu’ran to reinforce the point that Christianity excludes all paths to
12
OST ION IS TRUE God except Jesus and that Islam rejects all other religions. Perhaps the monotheistic faiths are the problem – the far Eastern religions may have a more harmonious perspective. We will look at them in a moment, but realize the implications: Christianity and Islam between them account for more than half of the world’s population. Excluding them invalidates the notion that all religions are fundamentally correct – philosophical pluralism could at most be the suggestion that “the world’s religions are mostly correct with the exception of the religions that most people believe.” Buddhism and Hinduism are harder to analyze, because although they have important texts they do not place the same emphasis on them as Christianity and Islam. Rather than simply quoting from the Dhammapada or the Bhagavad Gita we must consider these faiths historically. Buddhism, it surprises many Westerners to realize, was founded upon the rejection of central tenets of Hinduism by Siddhartha Gautama (now known as the Buddha). A moment’s reflection demonstrates that it must have been so: Siddhartha was born a Hindu and went on to found his own religion. These are not the actions of a man who believed Hinduism was correct. One specific aspect of Hinduism he rejected was the caste system. Buddhism, therefore, is built upon the foundation that not all religions are correct. Buddhism could not exist as a separate religion otherwise. This leaves only Hinduism to consider. Hinduism is, of the four faiths we are examining, the one most difficult to summarize fairly. Hinduism is not really a religion in the way most Westerners think of religion. It’s more like a framework for several subreligions. As such, it is inclusivistic and teaches that there are many paths to God. This seems much like the philosophical pluralism we are discussing, but in practice it turns out not to be. Hindu devotees tend to say things like “Everyone is a Hindu” and “Hinduism is the only religion – other faiths are merely forms of Hinduism.” And so Hinduism, too, claims to have the exclusive truth – other
religions are just immature or incomplete realizations of Hinduism. Hindus claim to treat the prophets of each religion as wise sages but then proceed to disagree with them. They regard them as teachers of truth except when they say something that contradicts what the great Hindu sages have taught. Hinduism’s embrace of other faiths is illusory since Hindus don’t actually accept other faiths but only the parts of them they approve. Each of the four major faiths denies at least one of the other major faiths. Philosophical pluralism is a non-starter – it simply does not comport with the reality of religious belief. WHY MOST PEOPLE ARE PLURALISTS ANYWAYS But for most people these arguments aren’t compelling because they didn’t adopt pluralism for philosophical reasons. They became pluralists for three reasons: 1) A suspicion that although religions disagree about many things, the religions are nonetheless teaching the same thing at the core. 2) A suspicion that the various religions have the same vaguely positive effects on their followers. 3) A suspicion that there’s no way to know who’s right. Considering these three, some sort of pluralism seems very appealing. Let’s examine each suspicion in turn. SUSPICION #1: RELIGIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME This suspicion might be stated thus: “Sure, religions disagree about stuff like what day to worship on and the exact words that God spoke to people. But they agree on the essential stuff like love and faith and peace. Take all that other stuff away and the core is the same.” This seems profound until we realize what we have done. We have said, “Take away all the stuff that is different and examine what remains. It’s all the same!” Well, of course. No other outcome is possible. We could repeat the process with anything: hamsters and snakes (both living organisms of superclass Gnathostomata), cubes and spheres (both platonic
13
solids), or stars and nightlights (both light sources). When we take away their differences we are left only with their similarities.
SUSPICION #2: RELIGIONS HAVE SIMILAR PRACTICAL IMPACTS
While what things have in common with one another is interesting it is what distinguishes them that establishes their identity. Things are defined, in part, by their differences from other things.
This suspicion might be worded like this: “From what I can tell, devout Buddhists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims all seem to act pretty much the same when it comes to the common virtues. Christians aren’t more honest than Buddhists. Hindus aren’t more likely to pitch in to help someone move than Muslims. Despite their theoretical differences, the religions are interchangeable in real life.”
In the realm of religion, this is summed up well by Steve Turner in a stanza from his poem “Creed”: "We believe that all religions are basically the same– at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation." There have been many attempts to identify what it is that binds all the faiths together under the title “religion” – the one that seems most plausible to me is that each of the world religions advocates some perspective on reality that includes the claim that something is fundamentally wrong and prescribes a remedy. Unfortunately for pluralism, they disagree about what is wrong and therefore also disagree about how to fix it. Let us consider each question with respect to the four world religions. 1) What is wrong with the world? Buddhism teaches that the root of suffering is desire; whereas Hinduism teaches that the reason for suffering is evil done in a previous lifetime. Islam teaches that people are capable of true righteousness but are weak and sometimes fumble; whereas Christianity teaches that people are dead in their sins and incapable of achieving righteousness. 2) And how can what is wrong be made right? It depends upon what is wrong. Buddhism teaches that we should stop wanting things. Hinduism teaches that we should want the right things in the right way. Islam teaches that we should submit to Allah and try harder. Christianity teaches that we need to repent of our sins and receive God’s grace. These are not trivial differences. But, someone might object, don’t religions agree on stuff like the need to love people? Not really – even when religions use the same words (such as “love”) they usually infuse them with different meaning. Hinduism teaches that you should love people, but Hinduism defines love in a caste-based system. Buddhists teach that, while you should be compassionate towards all life, love is one of the desires you need to grow out of. Islam does teach the obligation to love – but it does not command Muslims to love their enemies. Christianity teaches that true love requires that Christians love their enemies like they love themselves. So yes, each religion commands love but every religion describes love differently. Examples could be multiplied, but the point is clear. From a distance, all the religions seem quite similar. Then again, from a distance a wolf looks like a dog. Details matter.
14
circumstances can you deceive someone? How much money should you give to charitable causes? How should you worship? How should you pray? Saying that the religions all teach a common core of morality misses the point. A devout Hindu will not live like a devout Christian. In fact, this is so true that it shapes the course of whole societies. Robert Woodberry makes this point convincingly in his article “The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy.” Woodberry demonstrates that a particular sort of Christianity is uniquely and causally associated with the growth of stable liberal democracies. In his words, “Statistically, the historic prevalence of Protestant missionaries explains about half the variation in democracy in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania and removes the impact of most variables that dominate current statistical research about democracy. The association between Protestant missions and democracy is consistent in different continents and subsamples, and it is robust to more than 50 controls and to instrumental variable analyses."4 SUSPICION #3: THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW WHO IS RIGHT Now we come to what seems to be the fundamental reason many people are pluralists – it’s a way of expressing confusion or incomprehension. For many people, saying “all religions are equally true” is an imprecise way of saying “I can’t tell which religion is true.” But thinking about religion is not complicated. You figure out what to think about religion the same way you figure out who to vote for, who to marry, and what to major in. You gather evidence and render your best judgment. How can you gather evidence? By reading books, talking to people, and visiting religious meetings. It’s not as hard as we sometimes think. There is certainly common teaching among the world’s religions. Each faith advocates the sorts of things that all cultures that wish to survive must advocate (honesty in most situations, nonviolence in routine interactions, respect for the property of others, etc), but they differ on several practical matters. Let’s pick two: what you can put in your body and what you can do with your sexual organs. Dietary Regulations – Many Buddhists are vegetarians, but this is not obligatory. Christianity forbids drunkenness. Most Hindus abstain from meat. Islam forbids pork and alcohol. Sexual Regulations – For Buddhists, the ideal is to not desire sex, but that is reserved for professionals. Others have “lawful” sex while striving not to be attached to the pleasure that comes from it. Marriage is optional but customary. Christianity forbids sex outside of marriage. Marriage is monogamous and heterosexual. For Hinduism, there are a variety of teachings on sex depending on which strain is being examined. Islam forbids sex outside of marriage. Marriage is polygamous and heterosexual. These are differences that make a difference in daily life. And they are only the tip of the iceberg. Who can you marry? Under what
Do you have to consider every religion before you make your decision? No more than you have to date every eligible person in the world before you select a spouse. You stop once you find the right one. I will leave the other religions to speak for themselves, but I offer this advice for Christianity: Jesus said: “If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own”.5 Read the gospels and choose to do God’s will by doing whatever you see Jesus commanding or modeling, and see whether life makes more sense when lived that way. John 14:6, NIV. Acts 4:12, NIV. 3 Surah 3:85. 1 2
"The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy", The American Political Science Review Vol. 106, No. 2 (May 2012), pp. 244-274. 5 John 7:17, NIV. 4
Glen, an ordained Assemblies of God minister, has been the advisor of Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship since 2002. He blogs at theglendavis.com, is on Twitter @theglendavis, and preaches on campus weekly. Chi Alpha's service schedule is at xastanford.org.
15
Healing in Homes Dan Thomas
16
The first time it happened, I didn’t really take notice. I assumed the joy and energy I felt on the plane traveling back was just a high from the novelty of doing something out of my comfort zone. My team was exhausted, not needing or wanting to talk, not caring for the in-flight entertainment on the return leg. Yet you could not hide the smile on each beaming volunteer’s face. This smile did not fade and it watered the hearts and minds of their extended families back in San Francisco for many months to come. By the fourth trip, the evidence was compelling. My staff back at work would notice the change. My patients noted the change and wanted to hear stories. My mind could think and write clearly, lubricated with an inner joy and fresh perspective that everything mattered, that our menial labors in the suburban West were not in vain. Most surprisingly I found myself listening more carefully to my students and coming up with creatively useful ideas for them. I can even name three mini-breakthroughs in my research that occurred in the weeks following an overseas cross-cultural volunteer trip that led to high-impact publications. Some Americans get refreshment from vacations and weekend trips. Many find solace in meditation, prayer, walking in parklands or reading a favorite author. I am sure all have value. But I cannot help but notice my greatest joy has come from visiting homes, and in particular, the homes of those in need. After having these experiences as a medical professional, I found the contrast between charitable volunteerism and working in a large tertiary hospital work all the more stark and tried to understand why the after-effects of both on personal “wellness” were so polarized. Both involve lack of sleep and consume hefty calories. The first usually involves visiting with a few having little and seemingly doing little for no pay; the second seeing many with significant resources and doing much for them with a lot of pay. But the after-effects on the physician’s well-being are significant. In a 2012 study of 7,288 physicians funded by the American Medical Association, 1 in 2 complained of at least one symptom of burnout (cynicism, exhaustion and decreased productivity).1 Burnout rates are consistently higher than for other jobs, proportional with having a higher degree and not related to age or sex. Recent signatories in a campaign for physician autonomy at Stanford Hospital suggest burnout and dissatisfaction rates are no less and probably higher in elite academic hospitals. Everyone is tired and we are not entirely sure why. The high prevalence suggests burnout is not just a phenotype of a few “weak” individuals, but something more systemic, more insidious. The medical literature points to possible contributors including excessive workload, loss of autonomy, inefficiency due to excessive administrative burdens, a decline in the sense of meaning that physicians derive from work, and difficulty integrating personal and professional life, but few interventions beyond bureaucracy mandated “stress reduction training” programs have been tested and we do not know enough. The charitable work that personally gives me the most satisfaction involves giving help to people in their private homes. Sometimes there is a medical emergency. Sometimes it is a second opinion. Sometimes it is a complex psychosocial problem with physical manifestations. Usually for me it has been in a cross-cultural context somewhere in the Middle East or Asia. Sometimes I find myself in a tent on the 13th Avenue SF or a UNICEF tent full of Damascan silks in the Bekaa Valley (Lebanon), rubbish outside the tent but spotless, enchanting, and quiet within, each infant sleeping on a personal royal cushion. Occasionally it is a simple invitation for dinner to meet the whole family of a student; once it was a musician-friend who had passed away suddenly. But no matter what the original problem was, the repercussions and after-effects usually exceed a brief medical intervention. One of my first and memorable home visits was an invitation by a Syrian man in December of 2011 to visit his cloister oasis garden in the small town of Palmyra. Local folklore and the Biblical book of 2 Kings state this city was built by Solomon as an oasis caravan town halfway
17
to the Euphrates. His wife was pregnant at the time. Notably, this occurred ten days before the Arab Spring. He prepared a sumptuous feast of olives, dates, figs and kabob and showed us his date palms. Then he sent his family away and locked the doors and windows. In broken English he spoke of rumors of something very dangerous coming from the deserts in the south. I did not know what he was talking about at the time and my understanding of the rise of Wahabist movement was limited. He asked if we would bless his family and his pregnant wife, who looked ruddy and healthy. He told me, “we are the Palmyrans, we are peaceloving; we never wanted this”, and we spoke about the power of forgiveness and superiority of faith. On departing we gave him a gift for his generous hospitality, and he gave us dates. I will never forget this encounter. Not long after, the city of Palmyra and its ancient ruins were destroyed. In the 19th century, doctors did house calls. And they would learn a lot from visiting the homes of their village or parish. Just as we know in medicine that the skin reflects the gastrointestinal system, the home can, in some measure, be a reflection of the heart. Luke, a physician writing in the New Testament describes the sending out of a large group of spiritual health workers to visit homes and heal the sick that they found. Christ is recorded as commanding them to speak “peace” (“Salaam” in Arabic) to the house, implying that the house itself has a sense of ill or wellness, confusion, or congruence. In a brief moment, a health worker can easily tell schizophrenia, from obsessive compulsive disorder, from a child with attention-deficit, from depression, opioid addiction, tuberculosis, chronic fatigue and HIV. Sometimes you can even smell it. In San Francisco, I’ve made a practice of regularly visiting tents and women’s shelters. It is different from the bedouin tents of the Middle East but still feels like visiting someone’s home, even if next week “home” will be behind BestBuy rather than on 13th Street Mission. I have noticed that it is especially when you hold hands and exchange a delicious home cooked meal that people truly open up about their mental state and recent medical history and help to formulate a plan to get help. The few items a homeless person decides to keep near their pillow can tell you what is important. I have never been threatened or felt unsafe once. Driving home back to Palo Alto late Monday night, again there is an invigoration that is beyond words. Seven years after that visit to Palmyra I took a small team to Tyre in the south of Lebanon. Here, thousands of Sunni Syrian refugees were living in semi-abandoned Palestinian refugee camps. The majority of households consisted of a single mother caring for an average of six children with a few pillows and silver cooking pans. Their poverty was acute but their dignity, beauty, and cleanliness profound. One particular lady I was asked to visit had a four year old child who was mute, the chief cause of her complaints. We had tried three times to visit, but each time she had been away crushing rocks at a nearby factory. Finally we arrived and were warmly greeted, as non-Syrian non-Sunni Westerners. As I tested the child’s hearing, I found she seemed to hear just fine and could clearly obey commands but was certainly not talking. There was
18
no evidence of a hereditary component and I suspected psychological trauma was the underlying culprit. While I was speaking to the mother, a Jordanian student on my team gave a her hug, and uttering a simple prayer, touched her lips with water. Looking her intently in the eye, the child began to speak. “Mamma” she said. “Lana” “Baba.” The clinic assures me she has been speaking ever since. On the plane back to the US, my mind was whirling. What did we do in less than an hour by a simple visit that prescriptions or weeks of counselling (virtually non-existent service for refugees in Lebanon) may not achieve? How do you quantify the psychological and physical benefits of in-person visits to homes for both the visited and the visitor? Is it just the psychological effects of love-in-action, tender-loving care? Was this event a bona fide miracle? Does that little girl know what a gift she was in return to my mind and soul, my practice, my worldview, and my research? Why is it easier to prescribe than to visit the sick at home? Do we as humans merely need more drugs and medical treatments, more material support? Or is something more personal, more vulnerable needed? As I have reflected on the energizing power of volunteer medical mission work versus working in the current medical system, I have questioned many prior assumptions that I used to hold naturally. Is it possible that our pursuit of efficiency and cost lowering in medical institutions, hyper-specialization, and over-reliance on tech have taken away from the act of providing charity and simply “being there,” and in turn have lead to unnecessary burnout among healthcare workers? Is there a sacred act of caring, beyond outcome, that we cannot finally replace with modern medical interventions, standard operating procedures, and AI? Perhaps there will be a strong placebo effect when a chatbot tells an anxious patient via text that they are going to be okay. But my experiences have increasingly led me to believe otherwise that humans ultimately need a human element in their care, that there would still be a place for the simple home visit. 1
Shanafelt et al, 2012, Archives of Internal Medicine
Dr Dan Thomas MD PhD is a clinical hematologist and cancer researcher who has conducted research since 2012 in the Stanford Cancer Institute and Stem Cell & Regenerative Medicine Institute in the School of Medicine and has recently accepted a faculty position in Australia. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes for his cancer research including K99-R00 award from National Cancer Institutes, Centenary Medal and Albert-Baikie Medal. Dan is married to Anafia and enjoys volunteer medical work in the Middle East.
19
SILENCE AND THE CHRISTIAN HEART THOMAS COLBURN
A WHISPER
touches the limpid pool of silence, and the ripple shimmers over the still surface. The wave traverses the glassy waters, kissing the edges and rebounding until the calmness returns. God’s infinite love for humanity overflows into the world in His whispers to the human heart. His wisdom often finds the pool of our hearts as a chaotic whirlpool. His quiet, longing call is lost among turbulence. When God touches a soul accustomed to hearing His voice in the quiet of prayer, the ripple’s impact is known and leaves a mark of Grace on the recipient. Amidst a world of noise, there lies something countercultural that few discuss. It isn’t a new fad, a revolutionary technology, or an innovative genre. Rather, it is simply a rejection of the continuous sound, music, and talk that permeates the modern world. One can hardly escape the drone of news stations in the airport, pop music in the mall, and jazz on elevator rides. However, the human heart pays a price for all of this sound. Man has unmoored his heart from Christ’s everlasting foundation and replaced it with the quixotic beckoning of the world and the lies of the devil. What is the importance of silence to the Fathers of the Church, the monastic writers, and the Saints? One only has to look to the earliest Christians to see the vital impact of silent prayer and Christian meditation on growth in the spiritual life. Take the great monastic Fathers: Sts. Cassian († A.D. 363), Benedict († A.D. 547), and Athanasius († A.D. 373) stand as pillars of a lifestyle almost forgotten by the Western ethos. Their adherence to monastic life is bound to the vitality given to those who live and contemplate God’s Sacred Mysteries in silence. In the Rule of St. Benedict, a spiritual guide and vital instrument that shaped Western monasticism, he writes, “the oratory ought to be what it is called, and nothing else is to be done or stored there. After the Work of God, all should leave in complete silence and with reverence for God, so that a brother who may wish to pray alone will not be disturbed by the insensitivity of another. Moreover, if at other times someone chooses to pray privately, he may simply go in and pray, not in a loud voice, but with tears and heartfelt devotion."1 St. Benedict recognizes the humility involved in praying in quiet and admonishes monks following his rule to adopt a method of prayer enshrined in silence. Further, St. Benedict illustrates even more profoundly: Let us follow the Prophet’s counsel: I said, I have resolved to keep watch over my ways that I may never sin with my tongue. I have put a guard on my mouth. I was silent and was humbled, and I refrained even from good words.2 Here the Prophet indicates that there are times when good words are to be left unsaid out of esteem for silence. For all the more reason, then, should evil speech be curbed so that punishment for sin may be avoided. Indeed, so important is silence that permission to speak should seldom be granted even to mature disciples, no matter how good or holy or constructive their talk, because it is written: In a flood of words you will not avoid sin3; and elsewhere, The tongue holds the key to life and death.4 Speaking and teaching are the master’s task; the disciple is to be silent and listen.
20
St. Benedict is calling his monks from the noise and distractions of the world and into the profundity of silence. The “monk” or sage is an archetype of the human person and is universally called to contemplation that resonates across cultural and regional divides. When we neglect this inner yearning enkindled by living our call to prayer and contemplation, we quickly find ourselves unable to hold our tongue, and we can easily become attached to the comforts and consolations of our confers rather than the comforts and consolations of God. God’s calling to blessed silence is hardly more evident than in the life and writings of St. Teresa of Avila. St. Teresa of Avila († A.D. 1582), a Carmelite nun and Spanish mystic, had a vision of Our Lord in which He said, “I would willingly speak to many souls; but the world makes such a noise in their heart that My voice cannot make itself heard”.5 Christ longs to enter into our hearts, yet we must quiet our souls to take refuge in Him. While one may object, saying we are called to “[go] therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”, and that Christians are to proclaim the Good News.6 Part of the case for silence is that it pays dividends in evangelization. It is only through surrendering the heart totally and relinquishing our pride that Christ speaks through us. A soul with the indwelling of the Holy Trinity and in a state of sanctifying grace is not only able to bear witness to the Sacred Truths of Holy Scripture but also begins to manifest the profound realities of Christian charity in its very being. St. Alphonsus de Liguori († A.D. 1787), Doctor of the Church, writes, “Ah! when a detached soul is engaged in prayer, truly does God speak to it and make it understand the love which he has borne it; and then the soul, as a certain author says, burning with holy love, speaks not; but in that silence, oh, how much does it say!”5 It is in understanding and internalizing the reality of God’s transformative and radical love for humanity that we can then be conduits for that love to others. Moreover, when we reform our own broken hearts, scarred from our first birth with Original Sin and born again by the grace of Baptism, we can be the most effective witnesses to the necessity of God’s Grace for our salvation.
CHRIST LONGS TO ENTER INTO OUR HEARTS, YET WE MUST QUIET OUR SOULS TO TAKE REFUGE IN HIM. While our culture anxiously flits through playlist after playlist, the miseries plaguing the human heart can find prayerful silence as an antidote. How might we achieve this silence in our modern lives amidst the turbulence of society and the call to spread our charity to all nations? Seek silence each day and partake of the ancient practice of lectio divina, a method of meditating on
small sections of scripture, visit a monastery and experience this transformative Christian lifestyle, sit in silence with God and contemplate the mysteries of His Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection, and look to the lives of Christians who have passed before us in the spirit of sanctity. Spending time with God not only allows us to hold a mirror up to our sinful desires and faults, but also gives us an opportunity to reflect on our journey with God on the path to sanctity. We must constantly look to the Cross as the instrument of our salvation on which the Blood of the Savior was shed. As we look to the Cross, we can use the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. John the Beloved as examples of Christian piety. Their silence upon gazing at the Crucified Lord speak to the necessity for cultivating silence in the modern soul and calls us to a like form of contemplation especially during worship. The Virgin Mary, in losing not only her Son but her Savior, gazed at the Cross in adoration of God, realizing the depths of His love for us. So too must we gaze in blessed silence at the nails which pierced the hands and feet of Christ, we must gaze into His side which poured forth blood and water for our salvation, we must gaze into His patient eyes and His brow scarred by the daggers of the Crown of Thorns and into His heart which longs more deeply for His children to seek refuge there. Two people in true love can speak to each other’s hearts without words. Husband and wife can know the ills that plague one another with only a glance. So too is it the case for God and His children: God constantly loves us, but do we ever take the time to look longingly into His eyes, converse with Him in prayer, and fly to Him in hardship and temptation? God’s love demands neither truisms nor adages; His love is born to us in silence and, like a true lover, we need only cast our souls into His loving hands and chase after Him. As the Gospels say, “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you”.7 Let us always run to God in our hearts and find Him in our prayers. His love is a lamp that never burns out, a beacon that is never obscured by fog, and a flaming arrow that pierces and thaws our frozen, hardened hearts. Rule of St. Benedict, 72-73. Psalm 38[39]:2-3, Douay-Rheims. Proverbs 10:19, Douay-Rheims. 4 Proverbs 18:21, Douay-Rheims. 5 The Way of Salvation and of Perfection. 6 Matthew 28:19, Douay-Rheims. 7 Matthew 7:7, Douay-Rheims. 1 2 3
Thomas Colburn is an undergraduate majoring in Chemical Engineering. When he is not in lab making solar cells, Thomas enjoys studying Catholic thought, dogmatic theology, Gregorian chant, and Sacred Scripture. Thomas works on Faith Formation for the Stanford Catholic Leadership Team, is founder and president of Stanford Gregorian Society, and loves Catholic liturgical traditions. He can occasionally be found serving Our Lord’s altar at Holy Masses around the Bay Area or sitting in choir at the Immaculate Heart of Mary Oratory.
21
EVOLUTION AND GOD ARE COMPATIBLE.
22
DELONG MENG
I S T P L H
IN1925T I STATEOF TENNES PASSEDA LAWPRO HIBITIN IN 1925
the state of Tennessee passed a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools. A high school teacher named John Scopes challenged the law and generated a nationwide sensation known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. Scopes lost his case in court, but ignited the debate over evolution vs. creationism1, which eventually led to two Supreme Court cases that declared the teaching of creationism in public schools unconstitutional.2 Although the legal battles have been settled, the theological issues surrounding evolution continue to trouble many Christians today. Is evolution compatible with the creation account in Genesis 1? If we interpret Genesis 1 as metaphorical, are we abandoning tradition in a desperate effort to save the Bible from science? If evolution were true, how could God be relevant? This article will discuss each of these questions in detail. WHAT ARE THE INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS 1?
Let us begin with the four prevailing interpretations of Genesis 1 as well as the pros and cons of each interpretation.
Young Earth Creationism – The most literal reading of Genesis 1 holds that God created the world in six 24-hour days, because at the end of each period of creation “there was evening, and there was morning.” However God created the Sun on the fourth day, so how could there be mornings and evenings in the first three days? Young Earth Creationists typically respond to this criticism in two ways: 1) the light in the first three days refer to the glory of God, or 2) the Sun became visible from the Earth’s perspective on the fourth day. Young Earth Creationism also faces another weakness: modern science indicates that the Earth is around 4.6 billion years old, much older than 4004 B.C. (from the calculation of Bishop James Ussher3). A possible response from Young Earth Creationists is that God created the world with an appearance of age, just as God created Adam as an adult instead of a baby.
Gap Theory – One could easily modify Young Earth Creationism as follows: there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In other words, God created the heavens and earth billions of years ago, but the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days and took place 6000 years ago. This theory keeps the literal reading of Genesis 1, yet accounts for
23
STARTIN THECHU THERS,M HEMTOO THATMO FUDAME pre-Adamite civilizations and the fall of Satan.
The weakness of the Gap Theory is that it is an unnatural explanation. It seems like a desperate attempt to reconcile the six literal days with the 4.6 billion years of the Earth’s age. Moreover the six literal days of creation fail to match the geological data of ancient species, although a potential response is that Noah’s Flood changed all the geological strata that we observe today – an argument that many Young Earth Creationists espouse.
Progressive Creationism – This interpretation is also known as the “Day-Age Theory”. Under this theory God directly created the world without leaving anything to chance, but each “day” of creation is a long period of time instead of 24 hours. The Hebrew word “yom” could mean a day or a long interval of time, so translating “yom” as “age” is exegetically legitimate.4 It also provides a harmony between Genesis 1 and science.
One major source of criticism of Progressive Creationism is its claim that death occurred before the Fall of Man, whereas Genesis 3 asserts that death came as a result of sin. The typical response is two-fold. First animal death before the fall is consistent with the Bible; indeed God breathed air into Adam, so there is something special about humans. Second, we have to distinguish physical death from spiritual death, and the Fall of Man refers to spiritual death.5 Theistic Evolution – Life evolved on Earth under the guidance of God. This interpretation unites creation with modern understandings of human origins. In contrast to atheistic evolution – which faces the criticism of where the first cell came from or the low probability events in evolution – theistic evolution allows for God’s intervention in the evolutionary process. Since the Bible is filled with stories of how God intervened in history, the providence of God in human evolution is a reasonable assertion.
A weakness of theistic evolution is that evolution is by chance, whereas creation is by design. More precisely the mutation of genes occurs randomly, and natural selection makes the fittest genes survive. Hence the open question is whether God plays an active role in the random mutation process, and if not, did God simply have the divine foreknowledge that the long sequence of random mutations would eventually lead to Homo sapiens?
Statistics on the public’s view of these interpretations of Genesis 1 differ across denominations. A Pew Forum survey in 2013 found that 64% of white evangelicals and 50% of black Protestants believe that humans existed in the present form since the beginning of time, but only 31% of Hispanic Catholics, 26% of white Catholics, and 15% of white mainline Protestants hold the same view. A further breakdown among white mainline Protestants shows that 36% believe that a Supreme Being guided evolution, and another 36% say that evolution is due to natural processes.6 HOW DID THEOLOGIANS INTERPRET GENESIS 1 OVER THE PAST 2000 YEARS? So far we have examined four different interpretations of Genesis 1. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses. We
24
take no stance on the validity of each interpretation; rather, the purpose of this article is to remove misinformation for those who see evolution and God as incompatible. One misconception is that metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1 is a recent (and desperate) effort to save Christianity from modern science. Therefore we naturally ask whether theologians prior to the 19th century have endorsed any metaphorical interpretation. Starting from the Church Fathers, many of them took positions that modern-day Fundamentalists would consider too progressive. Origen of Alexandria wrote that, “I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.”7 Clement of Alexandria questioned, “how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist.”8 To be clear Clement was not an Old-Earth Creationist. Clement believed that time itself was a product of creation, and therefore creation must have taken place instantaneous instead of over a certain period of time.
Augustine of Hippo similarly claimed that creation occurred in one instant instead of over six days: “Thus in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly bodies.”9
Note that these Church Fathers lived in the 3rd to 5th century, so they absolutely had no incentive to interpret Genesis 1 to align their beliefs with evolution. Similarly medieval theologians from the 13th century lived hundreds of years prior to Darwin. We know the Medieval Church took a hard stance against Galileo; did they also insist on the six literal days of creation? Anthony of Padua claimed in his Sermons for Sundays and Festivals that seven days of creation represent seven articles of the church.10 Bonaventure also provided a symbolic interpretation: “the seven days stand for the seven states of the Church through the succession of the seven ages.”11 Thomas Aquinas issued a dire warning to readers of Genesis 1: “Since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”12
The last sentence is quite scathing: Aquinas seemed to have anticipated the New Atheists’ mockery of Young Earth Creationists. Didn’t the Scopes Monkey Trial expose Holy Scripture to the “ridicule of unbelievers”? What would Aquinas say about the young American teenagers who abandoned their Christian faith after they discovered evolution? Anthony of Padua, Bonaventure, and Aquinas all lived in the 13th century, so just like the Church Fathers they had no incentive to reconcile Genesis 1 with evolution. Hence metaphorical interpretations of Genesis 1 is far from a recent phenomenon.13
NGFROM URCHFA MANOFT OPOSITI OERNDA ENTALIS We next investigate Darwin’s contemporaries and theologians in the 20th century. Did they forcefully condemn Darwin’s theory as heresy? Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. In an 1868 letter to J. Walker of Scarborough, Cardinal John Henry Newman argued that, “Mr Darwin's theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill.”
Newman’s letter in today’s context would be a rebuke to the “God of the gaps” argument – i.e., God fills the missing links in the evolutionary process. The “God of the gaps” is merely a technician; he may not possess any attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, and he gets less relevant as science could explain more about human origins. In contrast, God of the Bible is the architect of the world, and scientific discoveries reflect the glory of “Divine Prescience and Skill” as Newman put it. In 1950 Pope Pius XII suggested in the encyclical Humani Generis that there is no conflict between evolution and creation, but emphasized the distinction between the physical body and the soul. In a 1996 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this compatibility: “more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” Note that John Paul II specifically affirmed evolution as more than a hypothesis, contrary to what Young Earth Creationists claim. DOES EVOLUTION MAKE GOD IRRELEVANT?
We have argued that Genesis 1 and evolution have no inherent conflict, but if evolution explains human origins, why do we need God in the first place? Let us dig deeper into the meaning of Genesis 1 and its implications for our own lives.
EVOLUTION EXPLAINS "HOW THINGS CHANGE" WHEREAS CREATION EXPLAINS "HOW THINGS CAME INTO EXISTENCE." Monotheism – Perhaps the most important claim in Genesis 1 is “in the beginning, God.” In ancient Mesopotamian myth the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, and even the Kings are gods. On the contrary, Genesis 1 declares that all these “gods” are created. In fact the Sun was not even created until the fourth day, dispelling the myth that the Sun itself is a god. In Genesis 1 for each day of creation God smashed a set of false gods (i.e., idols)14, and God’s hatred of idolatry is a recurring theme in the Bible. Creatio ex Nihilo – God created the world out of nothing. Evolution explains “how things change” whereas creation explains “how things came into existence.” This distinction draws a critical look at the “God of the gaps” argument. Even if a missing link in the evolutionary process requires God’s intervention, such a God only has the power to work with
existing material. The God of Genesis 1 is a much more powerful God who created this material from nothing.
Imago Dei – God created mankind in His own image. Humanity bears the image of God and has intrinsic dignity. Therefore it is unjust to dehumanize others. It is worth noting that much injustice occurs in this world when people view others as non-human. No dictator would say that killing people is morally upright; instead, dictators often classify an entire group of people as enemies rather than human beings. For example, a Khmer Rouge leader Nuon Chea claimed that his regime killed millions of Cambodians because they are “enemies of the people”. Similarly, racism occurs when one group of people deem another group of people as inferior and deprive them their God-given dignity. Sanctity of Work and Rest – In Genesis 1, God told humans to “fill the Earth and subdue it”. Mankind will rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all living creatures on the ground. Therefore work is more than a pain we must suffer in order to pay our bills; we are called to be good stewards toward our work, and God promised to bless us with the fruit of every seed-bearing plant for food. Moreover in the seventh day God rested (technically this part is in the beginning of Genesis 2). In a fast-paced and competitive world we should remember the significance of rest. CONCLUSION
We have refrained from endorsing any particular interpretation of Genesis 1. Instead our goal is to clarify some misconceptions from Christians who see evolution as a threat to their faith or atheists who see creationism as a barrier to faith. We hope that this discussion will help both Christians and atheists to conduct more productive conversations on this topic. We encourage readers who are interested in this topic to explore two sets of questions. First, what is the current scientific understanding of human origins, and how does it relate to the Biblical story of creation? Second, how does the discussion on the deeper meaning of Genesis 1 affect our own lives? For example, how does the concept of imago dei influence the way we value other people? How does the sanctity of work affect our own attitude toward work? By “evolution” we mean that humans are descended from lower forms of animals. By “creationism” we mean God created human beings directly. 2 The First Amendment of the Constitution requires the separation between Church and State. 3 Ussher, James (1650), Annals of the World. 4 See the Anchor Bible Dictionary. 5 See the BioLogs article Did Death Occur Before the Fall? https://biologos.org/common-questions/ did-death-occur-before-the-fall/ 6 For more statistics see the Pew Research Center’s article Public’s View on Evolution, which is available at https://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/ 7 On First Principles IV. 16. 8 Miscellanies 6.16. 9 The Literal Meaning of Genesis, IV 26. 10 The seven articles of the church are Nativity, Baptism, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, Holy Spirit, and Judgment. 11 Breviloquium, II, 5:10. The seven ages of the Church refer to a particular timeline of history punctuated by Adam, Abraham, David, the Captivity, Jesus, and eternity. 12 See Chapter 17 of Thomistic Evolution by Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, Fr. James Brent, Thomas Davenport, and Fr. John Baptist Ku. Electronically available at http://www.thomisticevolution.org/disputedquestions/interpreting-genesis-1-with-st-thomas-aquinas/ 13 For more examples see Genesis According to the Saints by Daniel M. Clough. 14 For further discussion see The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science by Conrad Hyers. 1
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Delong Meng obtained his economics Ph.D. from Stanford in 2019. He is now an Assistant Professor at Southwest Baptist University’s Business School.
25
STA F F D O R O T H Y K A N G Editor in Chief + Designer R I L E Y D E H A A N Managing Editor A M Y WA N G Managing Editor T R I S TA N WA N G Editor + Designer H A D A S S A H B E TA P U D I Editor + Distribution G E O R G E L A U S T E N Outreach + Editor M C K E N N A L O O P Outreach + Editor P H I L I P E Y K A M P Finances + Editor A N T E Q U Designer + Editor I R E N A G A O Editor + Marketing
Your real, new self will not come as long as you are looking for it. It will come when you are looking for Him. – C.S. Lewis 26
NEXT STEPS UPCOMING EVENT We are hosting an intimate 3 course meal with 3 industry professionals called Faith In The Workplace on Monday, December 2nd. RSVP and get more details here: bit.ly/voxclarafall19
JOIN US Mondays, Old Union 201, 8 - 9pm
GIVE US FEEDBACK voxclarastanford@gmail.com
R E A D P A S T I S S U E S issuu.com/voxclara
WEBSITE
voxclara.wixsite.com/voxclara
PHOTOGRAPHY CREDIT Magdalene Koo and Unsplash Contributors
SPECIAL THANKS TO Carlos Armenta and Folger Graphics
27
this is for you Atheist, Christian, agnostic, religious— wherever you are in the journey of seeking truth, this journal you’ve been handed or picked up is meant to be read by you. We from Vox Clara, Stanford’s Journal of Christian Thought, want to encourage you to think, ask, and have conversations about life’s big questions. Life is challenging but we have each experienced God transform the darkest areas of our lives and lift the burdens of our hearts and minds. We do not wish to impose our beliefs, but rather to serve as faithful conduits of our Christian faith to everyone at Stanford who, like us, is searching; searching for meaning, for truth and for Love.