On Evolution

Last week, at the 2013 Annual Conference of the Baltimore-Washington Conference, a resolution was presented that would acknowledge the evolution is an acceptable theory and is not in conflict with United Methodist teachings on God as creation of all the world. It is both surprising, but also not, that this ended up as one of our most drawn out debates. Now, that really only means 20-30 minutes, but hey, in a year where there was neither discussion of nor debate on the budget, that’s pretty remarkable.

Though I fear it’s a bit passive-aggressive to blog after the fact, it’s all I have (I did NOT want to contribute to the length of the debate—it made us look silly).

First, let me make a few statements that for me are foundational:

1. Genesis actually contains two creation narratives. They are similar, but are, in fact different (a point one speaker apparently did not know, as he talked of THE creation account in Genesis 1). The first account actually goes from Genesis 1:1-2:4a, while the second picks up there (2:4b) and continues probably through the later chapters, but at least till then end of Genesis 2.
2. The point of these creation narratives is not to give a scientific description of creation but rather to make some theological assertions: (1) God created everything, is the source of all that exists, and did so with intention and plan and (2) all that was created was, at the beginning, good. These make seem like insignificant assertions, but just a brief glance at other creation narratives from other religious traditions shows what rather remarkable statements these are. In fact, they even challenge the prevailing Greek philosophical bent that has so distorted Christian theology in popular culture.
3. There is a remarkable symmetry between the progression of these creation narratives and the progression scientists propose for evolution. I don’t think that’s necessary, but it’s cool. Just sayin’.
4.  Given point #2, a rejection of evolution based on seeing the Genesis narratives as attempting to provide the same sort of information that the theory of evolution does is just silly. And, in fact, many scientists claim to have come to or strengthened their faith in God AS A RESULT of studying evolution and the natural world and believing there is no other explanation for how it all STARTED.
5. We quite easily understand God to work through natural processes in many other arenas, so it is hypocritical to believe God could not work through a process that we understand as evolution. Besides, is we assert, as scripture seems to, that God is constantly at work I the world to renew and redeem it, it is quite appropriate that we seem evidences of this progress in very tangible ways. This process ought not to challenge our understanding of God at work in the world. Ironically, the same folks who seem so disturbed by evolution are often the same who will say God sends natural disasters to punish people. So God works through some natural processes but not others? That’s just hypocritical.

All that said, I want to tell you a story that I told last fall in worship at Calvary. As a high school student, I hadn’t spent a ton of time studying evolution, and to be honest, I too struggled with how to see the intersection (or conflict) between my faith in God and belief in God’s loving creation and the scientific theory of evolution. One day, after our first class in evolution in, I think, my sophomore biology class, I went to speak with the teacher. I rather sheepishly told her I didn’t know how to process evolution in light of my faith in God. She said she too was a Christian, but did not feel like her understanding of evolution in anyway challenged her belief in God. In fact, she felt it strengthened it. Her witness, though brief and more academic than anything else, was very important in my own process. I studied, read, spoke with others, and came to believe that indeed, evolution in no way challenged my conviction in a loving God who created all.

Among the other “interesting” points made in opposition to evolution are these—I’ve replied in line:

1.  If we read the Bible literally, we cannot accept the varying time periods between creation and evolution. – WELL…United Methodists DON’T read the Bible literally. John Wesley believed that the Bible contained all things necessary unto salvation, but that otherwise we ought to look for the intention of the Bible. I don’t think that makes it untrue, but I think it forces us to study carefully. When the Bible talks about the day the sun stood still, I don’t believe it did. Partly because we now know the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth (so can’t stood still) but also because at that point, it seems clear that the writer is describing a day that seemed to last forever. The illustration of the sun standing still was his best way to describe what that was like, at the time.
2. If we give up on a literal reading of creation then we necessarily step onto the slippery slope of giving up on Jesus’ death and resurrection. – I don’t believe so. Using the above illustration, do I give up on my belief in Jesus by seeing that as a metaphor? No! Is it necessary for my salvation that I believe the sun stood still? No. Nor do I believe it necessary for my salvation to read the creation narratives literally (just there you have a problem since the two differ). I do, and the church historically has, believe it important to believe in a bodily resurrection. Now some United Methodists would not say that.  But officially we do, and that is a key point that has been worked over through much theological debate. I DO believe it important to accept what many believe are the key points of the creation narratives—that God created all and that it was good.  
3. People who want to believe in science should go join Scientology. – This was, perhaps, my favorite statement, and for those who weren’t there, evidences how silly things got. As I tweeted, it was obvious that the man who said this DOES NOT understand scientology. I’m not even sure where to start in making that point. But just google Scientology and read for yourself, and you’ll be broken of that proposal very quickly.

All that said, good smart people disagree. I know this is a key issue for people, and I also know we have all had different experiences. Many people have never heard a good explanation of evolution, nor have they studied Genesis very closely—and so are taking a stand on this based only on second-hand information. I encourage all to become more fully informed if this is a challenging issue for you. I am certainly no expert on this.

Ultimately, for me, I do not feel that my belief in God or Jesus is constrained by our scientific or academic knowledge. I believe that in my and my daughter’s lifetimes, we will learn more about our world and the universe that is exciting and challenging. Someday what is now science fiction to us (like Scientology started…perhaps…just sayin…) may be more real-life than we can imagine. For those who cannot find ways to apply the Bible in new ways, and contextualize it while maintaining its key elements, this will destroy their faith or push them further into a corner where they are disconnected from the rest of the world. But for those who are willing to admit that God is greater than we can explain, there will be some difficult reflecting, but we will be able to hold onto our faith even into new frontiers.  God cannot be boxed in, and we are called to be part of the hard work of balancing the essentials of the faith, the intentions of holy scripture, and the realities our lives bring us. For United Methodists, this is why we use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. To do so is important today, tomorrow, and every day to come.