Teaching "creationism"

The topic of religious eductation in public schools is one of some interest it seems. I noticed this blog on the topic of RE in the Sydney Morning Herald.

In part I quote:

The lack of attention to the most influential component of CRE, the “Christian” part, has put us in a spot of bother. It started when the child came home and proudly announced that God made everything. He showed his atheist father a workbook with the following activity.
Fill in the blanks:
G_D created the sun
G_D created the sky
G_D created the earth
Meh. I thought it was pretty harmless. Perhaps even mildly amusing. God is up there with Santa for me. It’s nice to believe if that’s what floats your boat. If your faith brings you joy, and helps you lead a better life, go for it. If you are Christian and find it offensive that I have put God on the same level as Santa, I apologise.
...
My husband was not so nonchalant.
He flipped his lid and started ranting about brainwashing and how if this is the best Christianity can come up with to teach their religion, then it’s not saying much for the religion. Sharing basic values of the Christian philosophy was ok, but teaching six year olds creationism was where he drew the line. He challenged my six year old, asking for proof of God’s existence, even recommending some questions he could ask his CRE teacher next week.

Interesting views of the matter!

I'm glad that the husband picked up the point of it, though. The point that caught me was that he considered a piece of standard Christian belief to be 'creationism' which is reserved in church circles, as far as I know, for people who believe that Genesis 1 provides a direct account of the sequence of events of creation. (Of course, most people do not consider "creationism" to have anything to do with the origin of the soul...its older usage).

A well informed 6 year old could of course have asked what his father knew, and I mean really KNEW about the origin of life. The only answer could be 'diddly squat'; because that's all anyone knows. The same answer stands for what is REALLY known about evolution.
He could also have challenged the metaphysical basis of the question; which would leave most fathers gasping, they, being average blokes, with poor grasp of the philosophical field of basic questions: see Alvin Plantinga for help on that one.

Still, we can comfort ourselves with faint amusement that an intellectual tradition which is deeply structured by Christian faith, with a frame of reference for enquiry that has its roots in the medieval church with its reorientation to modernism by Martin Luther is the one in which questions of its roots can be asked.

From NT to OT

I often attend a lunch time communion service; tis a wonderful thing. As part of the service we are blessed with a brief sermon, usually from an older, and in some cases, retired servant of the church. The blessing is not in their brevity, I might add, but in their content.

The other day, the president made a number of remarks that touched on the interests of this blog.

He told us that OT history was the basis of all that comes in the NT: the miracles in the latter being associated with faith in the creator; which creation, of course is set out in the OT, as part of its history!

He went on to say that God is established as the cause of creation in Genesis, and this is one of the parts of history that underlies faith. Our faith is not the airy faith of the one who rejects that God existentially intersects with our historical flow, but on the contrary the concrete faith of one who relies on God to do and be as he not only says, but showed that it was God that said it, in Christ, emmanuel.

Some further remarks were added as to the fact that science could not 'prove' that God created, but nor could it prove the opposite. I feared here that we were leaping out of the conrete biblical ontology into the idealism that lets us say that two contradictory things can be true at the same time in the same relations! I hope not. I hope he was just saying that it is not a matter of observation or deduction from the physical creation (but not denying there is some validity in that) but that it was a matter of that faith that is founded in the acts of God in history.

A sermon hearer's hopes

Over at Justin's blog, he some time ago did a series on 7 things he's learned about preaching in 7 years.  Nice blog idea!

As a sermon listener, I thought it would be a suitable exercise for late on Friday evening to set down some thoughts about 35 years of sermon listening (well, more actually, but let's not go into that!).

I liked Justin's seven, but I don't think I could distil my thoughts to seven points. Still, I'll try.

One thing I hope to bring to my observations is many years experience of public speaking, training, leading seminars, technical teaching (for a few years) and formal studies in adult education and training facilitation; maybe that'll provide a different perspective. At least I hope it may be of some benefit to...well, someone!

Firstly, I wonder, and have always wondered, what a sermon is to achieve. Is it meant to teach, transform attitudes, change behaviour, comfort, encourage, rebuke, build community, entertain, impress?

Some might say all of those things (except the final two!), but in practical terms, based on what I hear people discuss after sermons, it is the final two that count; at least subconsciously!

If the sermon is meant to do anything other than comfort or encourge, then it is misplaced. It is not the right vehicle to teach, transform, change behaviour...just the  wrong medium entirely.

We have the tension also of the use of the idea 'preach'. Does one 'preach' a sermon, or is preaching in the NT restricted to proclamatory discourse, with discourse intending to transfer information, build knowledge or change lives being 'teaching' or 'prophesy'; and neither need to, or maybe can occur in the liturgical setting that is the sermon.

This leads me to think that the sermon is a liturgical gesture, almost part of a rite, rather than anything that is truly educational. A web search on 'sermon' lead me to an interesting critique of sermonising that is worth a look, I think.

But, also what Paul has to say about discourse in the church: that is, amongst the company of believers, also bears consideration.

In I Corinthians 14:1-5, he sketches the range of this discourse, and its function. It is multifarious, but I like the words he chooses: "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation... one who prophesies edifies the church.

It would seem that these are significant components of discourse within the community of believers, yet sermons are emphasised as 'teaching' sessions, particularly in the evangelical tradition. But, as one who has been an educator, I might suggest that they are not such that learning is likely to occur; particularly if transformative learning is expected.

Rooted!

Our Bible talk today was in pleasantly different surroundings: in the cross aisle of the old church building. Justin pointed out with some amusement how we get excited over such young buildings here in Australia, when he'd just returned from London where St Helen's Bishopsgate had been there since the 14th C.

In talking about the gospel, Justin remarked that “the gospel is rooted in creation”, because here our connection with God is shown; in creation it is also shown that the only ‘given’ is God. This is not stated in the Bible as in any way allusive, mysterious or open to reinterpretation, the text is defiantly objective with respect to the parameters of our existence: time, space and event and it is these parameters used to delineate the creation acts.

To think that Genesis 1 does not show the real and actual connection of God with us, means that there is some other basis for the connection, but one that must no longer be direct or tangible, one that does not come from the text, but from somewhere else; thus, the realism that is inherent in the Genesis 1 description instantly dissipates, allowing all sorts of alternatives to gain ground as the creation and our connection with God ceases to be delineated in terms that are congruent with the world as we know it...so, some other terms, but ones which we cannot secure in our life-experience, world picture, or conceptual world-frame.

But, the underlying danger is that these inevitably speculative alternatives no longer must have God as the only given; they make other things potentially givens, and our generative allegiance wavers across a field of possibilities, rather than being anchored in God: is time also a given? What about ‘chance’ or ‘matter’, or ‘energy’ or the cosmos, or some principle of self directed change, or a ‘life-spirit’ that God merely co-opts and which must then exist independently of him?

It’s all up for grabs…because God is no longer the hub around which the creation across time and space revolves, and does Jesus then uphold it all?

Theological Scrap Heap

I was reading a text on the topic of creation recently; its treatment hinged on the largely fatuous, to my view, 'framework hypothesis' which really fails to tell us anything about the content or import of Genesis and defers instead to its putative arrangement...to what end is never clear, but that it removes from theologians the need to deal with the direct grammatical meaning of the text. Hiving off into constructs defeats the text, it doesn't elucidate it, or connect it to us, which is all the Bible is about: connecting God to us (through Christ, of course). Thus, everything, including the creation account is about this, and nothing else; although it touches other things incidently.

So where do the texts end that are not properly encountered by theology...in the theological scrap heap, of course: I think of the genesian chrono-genealogies, for example, but also the Lukan genealogy (which is slightly different), the creation account in its fulness, including its presentation in a sequence of 6 active days and a day of rest. To say, for instance, that the days' sequence is simply to permit the framework hypothesis is the result of a faulty engagement with the text, in my view. See here for discussion of the framework hyp.

Which world story?

At church on 22 Nov 09, the sermon mentioned people who declined in their Christian profession. I mentioned one such friend to the speaker afterwards. He asked the reason.

Now, this hadn't occured to me before, but the fellow who had this experience only talked about it in terms of one thing: he didn't use this phrase, but it was about competing world stories, or world narratives. He was persuaded by the evolutionary world story and clearly stated that on this basis he rejected the biblical world story.

1 World Story, or 2?

At St. Philip's last Thursday (19 Nov 09) I unfortunately missed the talk. Here's the promo:

We'll be hearing today from Andrew Katay, another of Justin's good friends, and Senior Minister at Christ Church Inner West Anglican Community.

Here's a taste of what Andrew will be challenging us with today:

" It's the great assumed story of our culture - the fabulous advances of science have left God in retreat, occupying a smaller and smaller space, until eventually (if the 'New Atheists' have their way), he will disappear altogether. But is the story right? Are science and God competitors? This Forum offers an opportunity to step back and consider an alternative. "

(I note the word "challenge", perhaps I wanted to join discussion, or be interested, or even entertained, or maybe I wanted to give a challenge...see my previous post on this.)

One reason I'd have liked to attend was that Mr Katay was known while ministering to students at Sydney University, to espouse a mediating line that allowed the blend of, well, not science, but materialist dogma and Christian faith; I don't know that it worked then, but I would have been keen to hear what he said this time.

There's plenty on this topic, of course, a few items new (James Hannam's God's Philosophers, for example) , and some old (The Origin of Science, which includes links to Stanley Jaki's work), and of course, Peter Harrison's great work on the genesis of modern science in orthodox Christian belief (notable a short duration and recent creation!).



The preliminary position I would take is that the notion of a conflict between 'science' and Christian faith is at root mistaken, Science has arisen out of a world story that rests in the Bible. Where conflict arises is when science equivocates into materialism or naturalism, and the conflict then is a natural outcome of world views.


This type of science promotes a world story that eliminates the creator and has the creation making itself: entirely as a result of forces acting within the cosmos. The world story of Christian faith is to the contrary.


Much theology is, in my view, insufficiently critical of the materialist world story, and insufficiently reflective of the biblical world story and its ramifications for our way of thinking, or approach to the world around us and finally for christology and then soteriology. Previous posts will give sufficient for me to not repeat myself here.


A postscript 7 Dec 09

But why, is there no conflict between science and Christian faith? This is the question I didn't address. Materialism would have it that it disinterestedly looks at the world and draws its conclusions simply from what it sees, unadorned by 'theory' or metaphysics.

Wrong. Materialism has no more direct contact with the world than any other endeavour. It is as embedded in a metaphysic as any religion is; that is, it proceed on the basis of a set of axioms, a view of the world that it takes as truly basic which is beyond its assessment.

Oddly, I think that materialism trades on the investment of Christian faith. The Bible has introduced a metaphysic which, while it has been centuries in development, has taken us far further than Greek empiricism ever did, or could; Aristotle notwithstanding. There is a certain reliance that must be made on the nature and state of the world before its examination can proceed reliably. If you truly think the world is subject to randomness, then science will likely drift into mysticism. If you truly think that the world proceeded from the hand of God in an orderly and realist manner...modern science; as Harrison has shown (and Jaki too, for that matter).

Science is the examination of the world on the principle that the world is genuinely and reliably examinable, and that we can draw robust and valid conclusions; however, for all its complexity, it is at the philosophical level of mechanics: it tells what is (exageration for effect, sorry!).

The first scientific gesture, I like to think, is Adam naming the animals in the book of Genesis: he more than named, on my understanding of the Hebrew cultural implication of that act, he identified them; that is he assigned a level of understanding to them to govern relationships between him and them.