Archives For Theology

This is a modest list of resources for further study into issues of faith and science. This is by no means exhaustive but hopefully a fair representation of the different interpretive views within orthodox Christianity. As previously stated in our ‘Faith & Science’ series, CCCC doesn’t hold to a specific interpretive position. With that said, the listing of resources here is not an endorsement (indeed, these works disagree with each other). On the contrary, we encourage you do the work both personally and in community in order to discover which of these resources makes best sense of the two books of God: his Word and his World. It should also be noted that descriptions were taken from other sources such as the publishers.

Faith & Science in General

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins is for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike. The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt and faith and as well as his experiences as a genetics researcher with discussions of science and spirituality, especially centering around evolution.

Quarks, Chaos & Christianity: Questions to Science and Religion by Sir John Polkinghorne draws on discoveries made in atomic physics to make credible the claims of Christianity, and helps refine Christian perceptions through the knowledge that the new science brings. He discusses belief in God, chaos, evolution, miracles, and prayer, and gives an answer to the question: Can a scientist believe?

Science and Religion: A New Introduction by Alister McGrath. This popular textbook introduces readers to the central questions in the field of science and religion. Ideally suited to those who have little or no prior knowledge in either area, it examines the historical, theological, philosophical and scientific aspects of the interaction between religion and science. Takes a topic-based approach which fits into the existing structure of most courses, and includes explanatory material not found in other works of this kind, making it highly accessible for those with little scientific or religious background knowledge.

Interpretive Views of Creation

Literal View (Young Earth Creationism)

Gap View

Day/Age View

Literary Framework / Ancient Near East View

CCCC’s “Understanding Creation” Presentations

Other Faith and Science Resources

Conversations Between Different Viewpoints

Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design by Ken Ham, Hugh Ross, Deborah B. Haarsma, and Stephen Meyer. Presents the current “state of the conversation” about origins among evangelicals representing four key positions: 1) Young Earth Creationism – Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis), 2) Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism – Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe), 3) Evolutionary Creation – Deborah B. Haarsma (BioLogos), 4) Intelligent Design – Stephen C. Meyer (The Discovery Institute). The contributors offer their best defense of their position addressing questions such as: What is your position on origins – understood broadly to include the physical universe, life, and human beings in particular? What do you take to be the most persuasive arguments in defense of your position? How do you demarcate and correlate evidence about origins from current science and from divine revelation? What hinges on answering these questions correctly?

Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos by Kenneth Keathley (Editor). Christians confess that God created the heavens and the earth, but they are divided over how God created and whether the Bible gives us a scientifically accurate account of the process of creation. Representatives of two prominent positions – old earth creation (Reasons to Believe) and evolutionary creation (BioLogos) – have been in dialogue over the past decade to understand where they agree and disagree on key issues in science and theology. This book is the result of those meetings that touches on many of the pressing debates in science and faith, including biblical authority, the historicity of Adam and Eve, human genetics and common descent, the problem of natural evil, and methodological naturalism. Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation? invites readers to listen in as Christian scholars weigh the evidence, explore the options, and challenge each other on the questions of creation and evolution. In a culture of increasing polarization, this is a model for charitable Christian dialogue.

Intelligent Design

Discovery Institute website

Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe helped to launch the intelligent design movement: the argument that nature exhibits evidence of design, beyond Darwinian randomness. It sparked a national debate on evolution, which continues to intensify across the country. From one end of the spectrum to the other, Darwin’s Black Box has established itself as the key intelligent design text — the one argument that must be addressed in order to determine whether Darwinian evolution is sufficient to explain life as we know it.

The Signature in the Cell by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. Meyer presents a convincing new case for intelligent design (ID), based on revolutionary discoveries in science and DNA. Along the way, Meyer argues that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as expounded in The Origin of Species did not, in fact, refute ID.


Evolutionary Creation

Biologos website

How I Changed My Mind About Evolution: Evangelicals Reflect on Faith and Science by Applegate and Stump (Editors). Many evangelicals have come to accept the conclusions of science while still holding to a vigorous belief in God and the Bible. How did they make this journey? Here are the stories of 25 people who have come to embrace evolution and faith, including Francis Collins, Scot McKnight, John Ortberg, James K.A. Smith, Jennifer Wiseman, and N.T. Wright.

Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture After Genetic Science by Dennis Venema and Scott McKnight. Genomic science indicates that humans descend not from an individual pair but from a large population. What does this mean for the basic claim of many Christians: that humans descend from Adam and Eve? Leading evangelical geneticist Dennis Venema and popular New Testament scholar Scot McKnight combine their expertise to offer informed guidance and answers to questions pertaining to evolution, genomic science, and the historical Adam. The authors address up-to-date genomics data with expert commentary from both genetic and theological perspectives, showing that genome research and Scripture are not irreconcilable. It should be noted that some readers found Venema’s first half of the book sounder than McKnight’s conclusions in the second half.

A couple of months ago I attended the BioLogos national conference in Houston. BioLogos are Christians who espouse evolutionary creationism, one of the positions on creation I know the least about – and not one I’ve held. I attended not because I think their viewpoint is the best but because I felt the need to learn from my Christian brothers and sisters, most of them scientists, who deeply love Jesus and his gospel and maintain there’s no real tension between science and faith as it relates to one of the most controversial and taboo topics in Christian circles: evolution. Needless to say, they’ve got a big hill to climb. But I appreciate them. They are asking questions I believe the church is going to have to answer sooner than we think (e.g., DNA editing, Genomic studies, embryonic medicine, and, not the least of which, what latest genetic studies claim about evolutionary theory).

As far as the conference went, I had nothing to share. I was just a fly on the wall. I wanted to learn, dialogue, and ask questions of them theologically and biblically. I discovered being with them the same thing I believe I would if they were the Intelligent Design, literal six-day, or some other camp – that they were sincere, winsome believers who genuinely wanted to live the truth of God in their lives as best as they understood Scripture and nature. It was moving for me to see their sincerity of faith, humility of spirit, and desire to honor God and his word. To be fair, I probably left with as many questions as answers, but that’s more than okay. One thing in which I did remain steadfast was the fact that there is no unanimous agreement on how believers understand the creation account of Genesis (even the BioLogos crew don’t agree amongst themselves).

All of it reminded me of a question I frequently get at CCCC: Yancey, what’s the church’s view of creation? It’s usually from members or leaders who’ve finally plucked up enough courage to ask their Teaching Pastor about how their beloved local church interprets Genesis 1-2 in the hopes CCCC’s view will match theirs. When they hear my answer, it almost always (not all the time) ends in relief. Let me explain.

Famous atheist and political commentator Bill Maher, on his television show Real Time with Bill Maher, questioned New York Times columnist and author Ross Douthat as to if he agreed all religions are anti-intellectual. Douthat disagreed by way of an illustration. He said the assumption is critics like Maher look at religious history and assume all Christians have taken the Genesis account of creation literally. Then Douthat went the historical route, adding:

But the truth is the idea that you take Genesis literally, as like six literal days of creation is pretty much a modern invention. Fundamentalism starts in the late 19th century…if you go back and look at ancient Christian authorities, they look at Genesis [differently] saying, “Look, this obvious isn’t [literal]…If you actually look at the first few chapters of Genesis, whoever wrote the Bible clearly didn’t mean to say this is a scientific account of creation. And actually, serious Christians have known that all the way back to the 1st century A.D.1

He’s right, at least with the point that Church History is full of godly, earnest, Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christian leaders who’ve held to different interpretations of Genesis 1-2.

For example, Church Father Augustine of Hippo, in his book The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, argued for an allegorical interpretation of the days of creation. His thoughts were ‘published’ in the early 5th century. Origen of Alexandria, an influential Christian thinker, taught Genesis should be interpreted symbolically. He lived all the way back in the 3rd century. This gives greater weight to the idea that it’s a modern invention to believe the church must have a uniform view of Genesis’ creation account in order to be considered ‘orthodox.’ Even in the 21st century, I can think of at least six different views current Christians hold concerning the creation account:

  • Literal six-day
  • Gap theory
  • Day-age theory
  • Literary framework
  • Intelligent Design
  • Evolutionary Creation

Each are attempts to best understand the creation account of Genesis in light of what is known about the universe today. Why so many? Well, the text isn’t so cut-and-dry as people may think. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are other questions: Do you believe in an Old Earth or Young Earth? Was the flood localized or global? Is Adam a singular person or could he be representational (or both)? Does the prehistory of Genesis 1-11 have the same kind of intent as Genesis 12-25 or is it different somehow? Did God speak via the Big Bang or not? These questions aren’t new. Actually, people have been asking questions like them for decades or even centuries.

That’s why at CCCC we are not dogmatic about one particular view over another. Personally, I’ve held most of the views listed. They all have pro’s and con’s. When I teach the doctrine of creation to our lay leaders in systematic theology I encourage them to wrestle with it themselves and ascribe to the position they believe best makes sense of the two books of God: nature and Scripture (Ps. 19). If you pick six literal days, great! If it’s Gap theory, good for you! If Intelligent Design is your choice, more power to ya! I try to emphasize that ultimately all these views at least agree on the critical truth that God created all things for his glory.

Frankly, I view the interpretations of the Bible’s beginning the same way I view interpretations of the Bible’s conclusion, namely, that since there are different, legitimate positions to which honest and earnest believers hold (e.g., amillennial, premillennial, postmillennial). CCCC does not have an official “end times” position either. We believe Christ’s return is personal, visible, and imminent. As to exactly what and how he will return, we’re not going to be dogmatic, just like the what and how God did creation.

It’s one more reason why CCCC doesn’t have an official position outside of this: We believe God created all things for his glory as expressed in Genesis 1-2. As to exactly how and what, well, now it’s your turn to do the hard work, learn, dialogue, ask questions, and choose…

In their blog this week The Gospel Coalition commemorated John Piper’s famous 2000 Passion Conference message “Don’t Waste Your Life” (aka, the “seashells” talk). It not only fixed Piper’s influence in the hearts of the 40,000 twenty-somethings gathered in Memphis on that afternoon in May but also became, as the blog notes, “formative for a generation.” For many, Dr. Piper’s words were prophetic, arresting, and spoke to them in the deepest of ways. I call that kind of a message a life message. It’s the kind of message that ruins you for all the right reasons and boldly changes the trajectory of your life.

It got me thinking about my own life message. I heard a talk (also a conference message) that spoke to me in the deepest of ways. It was one of those rare moments when you read or hear something by someone who puts into words what you believed but couldn’t put into words yourself. You just can’t quite formulate it yet. It was like an essential code in the back of your mind (and the middle of your heart) always frustratingly suspended on the verge of being broken. But the second someone finally deciphered it and you beheld its long-awaited clarity in all its glory, it became the Aha! moment where you shouted, “That’s what I believe!”

My “seashells” message was given by Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan. This was before he had written his bestselling books or attained national notoriety. It was 2007. A friend of mine in NYC encouraged me to listen to “this Tim Keller guy” whenever I had the chance, so when I came across a video of his address to the newly minted Gospel Coalition in May of that same year with a message entitled, “Gospel-Centered Ministry,” I thought it something I needed to hear. I settled into my office, closed the door, and watched his 55-minute address.

I was spellbound almost from the word ‘go.’ Dr. Keller’s struggles in church paralleled mine. Yet his answer to those struggles was exactly what I’d thought but couldn’t put into words: a theology of gospel-centrality. My growing angst in ministry had finally found the answer. Indeed, as I heard him eloquently speak about not only what the gospel is but how it should intersect all ministry, especially the pulpit (as he also was a preaching pastor), I kept saying aloud, “Yes.” “Yes.” “Yes.” Although his address wasn’t significantly animated or charismatic like John Piper’s message, I was continuously moved to tears throughout it.

Finally, I had the clarity I was looking for. The code was deciphered in my head and heart. It was such a “moment” for me I watched it again. Another 55 minutes of me nodding my head, dabbing tears from eyes, and saying in my heart, “This is what I believe!” In author Jared Wilson’s parlance, I was experiencing a gospel awakening.1

The grace in it all was Keller’s ability to not only put into words what I couldn’t about gospel-centered ministry but to provide a framework and paradigm for it as well. Now that I had it (or better yet, it had me), I was dangerous because I knew what this meant. I knew this would define me, my ministry, and the local church I served. There was no turning back. I wanted to know everything I could from those who sought to keep the gospel central to ministry. In short, I was ruined.

I read a lot, studied a ton, and even chose my doctoral work based on a seminary that would deepen me in gospel-centered ministry. I began to dialogue with those who were way ahead of me. I couldn’t get enough! I even called up Redeemer and asked for their discipleship materials, and our executive staff spent weeks working through them.2 Needless to say, gospel-centrality would be a defining mark of CCCC. Indeed, ten years later, it has. In a survey a few years ago of our staff and small group leadership, when asked what makes CCCC “CCCC,” at the very top of the list was our commitment to the centrality of the gospel in all things.

So, for all my Passion friends who were marked by God through Piper’s words, Keller’s did the same for me with this message3: