Thank you for both the spirit and the specific suggestions in the initial post on knowing when and how to correct errors within the Christian community. In Being a Christian in Science (IVP 1997) I discussed that issue in a section on "Conflict with Other Christians" within a chapter called "Now the Good News." That chapter dealt with special problems (and hence opportunities) arising from our dual allegiance to the scientific community and the Christian community. The following excerpt (pp.90-92) may contribute to the current thread:
Spiritual unity is important to the body of Christ, but sometimes that unity is more apparent than real. The members of a congregation or of a whole denomination can appear to be in agreement on some issue simply because questions are never raised about it. Scientists are accustomed to facing hard questions, so in a religious context a person with scientific training can be dismayed to discover that critical questions are not even being asked. If he or she asks such questions, the result may be an embarrassed silence rather than the open dialogue expected in a scientific context.
Unity that cannot withstand expression of contrary opinion is hardly true spiritual unity. On the other hand, in a religious context, the stakes are high and eternal destinies are at risk.
The impersonal character of scientific thinking makes it less inhibited than religious thinking. In the game of science one can ask almost anything or propose almost anything as a possibility, simply because one is playing with abstract ideas. Churches, on the other hand, deal directly with real human lives and deep human needs. Biblical terms like sacred, holy, salvation, and eternity indicate that Christians are not playing around in seeking to meet human needs. Devotion to God is not a game--nor, for that matter, is serious devotion to science.
Scientists who care about the church have a special responsibility to help it change for the better. With patience, we can help the church recover the empirical spirit Jesus modeled in telling his hearers to "Come and see for yourselves." He called himself "the way, the truth, and the life." Truth is never diminished by asking questions. In science as well as religion, faith requires going beyond the evidence at hand, but too many people, in and out of the church, falsely see religious faith as accepting doctrines in spite of the evidence.
Not all questions are equally helpful, in Christian circles or elsewhere. Few scientists would tolerate a barrage of questions that slowed the pace of a lecture by demanding of every statement made, "How do you know that?" Sooner or later, an exasperated scientist pushed on some basic point would say, "I looked it up, I trusted the literature, I see no reason to doubt it. Now, let's move on." The persistent doubter would earn a reputation as a troublemaker or misfit, even if such questions occasionally turned up a shaky assumption.
Religious dialogue carries additional emotional freight, so to be helpful, questions need to be asked thoughtfully and prayerfully. What should one do when ministers or other speakers say something about science and get it wrong? To point out an error in a public meeting will embarrass the person who made it and will probably push that person into a defensive posture. It is generally better to make one's point in private and let any public correction be made later by the speaker who originally made the error.
A typical church group emcompasses a far wider range of formal education than any group of scientists or students. That puts a further restraint on the way questions should be raised. In an open discussion the temptation to show up blatant ignorance, or simply to show off, is at times palpable. The urge to speak up as an authority can be almost overwhelming when other Christians put down science or scientists, especially if they do not know what they are talking about.
In taking the gospel to our scientific colleagues we would be careful not to alienate them unnecessarily. We should be equally sensitive when we try to counter ignorance or deep suspicion about science among people who honor the Bible. Our call to witness faithfully goes in both directions.
Within theologically conservative churches, the whole Bible is often interpreted quite rigidly, despite a general awareness that it is a library containing various types of literature. Sometimes considerable selectivity is employed in choosing which parts to take literally. What does the Bible mean to say about the age of the earth, if anything? Can a Christian who comes to accept the geological conclusion of an age of billions of years remain in fellowship with a narrower creationist convinced by biblical interpretation that the earth is only a few thousand years old? It is not easy, and it requires abundant good will on both sides.
The good will necessary in such hard cases must come from joint recognition of spiritual unity in Christ and from a high regard for the Bible. Two forgiven sinners who uphold Scripture as God's word should be able to "cut each other some slack." A superior knowledge of geology or a better command of logic can win an argument but lose us a friend. It might be better to table the argument and strengthen the friendship. In the long run, a friend who trusts us about other matters is more likely to trust us about geology. And we ourselves might learn something in the process.
These points were couched in more general terms than SteamDoc's thoughtful suggestions, partly because I wanted Being a Christian in Science to make sense to scientists who come to Christ with little previous exposure to the church, even though it was primarily addressed to young Christians attracted to science as a career. Best wishes, in Christ,
--Walt Hearn, the W of vwhearncat@peoplepc.com
The Troll House
Berkeley
510-527-3056
----- Original Message -----
From: SteamDoc@aol.com
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 1:45 PM
Subject: To correct or not to correct
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 15:07:15 EST