Hello everyone! I’m new here, and have been lurking for a few weeks with some pretty intense struggles in faith and doubt. Trying to take as much as i can. Over time, I may expound on my complicated relationship with my faith and my life expierences. In somewhat the vein of that, I wanted some insight on how people here engage with the faith and science in their local churches. I feel that I struggle to be vulnerable in my local church today because of my deep dives into topics of faith and science (especially regarding evolution and its theological implications), and how much of the common understanding of theistic evolution here is not commonly seen in the church. How do you approach your local church community when it feels like forums like this are on the fringes of Christianity and our positions aren’t commonly accepted in evangelical churches?
Welcome to the forum!
That’s a good question, and everyone will have a unique answer to it based on their own unique context and situation. So it’s hard to give good advice without knowing you better. If you’re wrestling in deep dives into topics of faith and science then you’ve landed in a good place to hear from many other people (some believers and some not) who have gone through that same wrestling experience. May you be able to find some good conversation here to help sort through those things.
I have the blessing to be a member in a local church community where questioning and differing interpretations about matters that are not core issues are accepted. Despite this, I face a situation where most members seem to have a differing interpretation about matters related to creation and the story of Adam & Eve.
I think this is natural as the others have often heard and read certain kind of teaching about the matters, and have not spent much time and critical thinking to studying these matters. We have common ground in the central issues, so differing interpretations about creation do not prevent warm relationships and cooperation. We are all learning and even my own understanding is still work in progress although I have followed the discussion for 40 years.
As I do not think that this is a core matter, I take a rather ‘soft’ attitude towards these questions. If someone asks, I tell what my interpretation is and explain the reasons for it. Otherwise, I try to speak about these matters in such a way that does not provoke sharp confrontations or divisions. If it seems that the feelings may get too hot, I switch the topic towards Jesus or suggest praying. Then we are again on the same side of the line.
Thank you I appreciate this!
I guess thats the crux of the struggle for me is that im entering a new church in this season of doubt in my faith and obviously that entails not necessarily having the same human connections that are solid before engaging in theological discussions.
As much as I find it somewhat uncomfortable, I do resonate on the focus of Jesus. The whole matter of Christiantiy is down to who you understand Jesus as. We can have all the arguments in the world about origins and historical vs theological narratives in the Bible, but it’s really Jesus that we should all find agreement in.
That is a matter of interpretation.
I do not support the interpretation that we are carrying the guilt of Adam (the original sin). I accept that we have an inherited tendency to rebel against God but do not believe that it is a consequence of what Adam did, or think that ‘original sin’ is a proper name for this tendency.
I do not either support the interpretation that death or sin came to the world after A&E took the fruit of a tree. As a biologist. I have read and seen convincing evidence that the earth and life are very old and there have been deaths for as long as there has been life.
My current interpretation is that the garden of Eden story (with Adam and Eve) is either mythologized teaching (allegorical narrative) or mythologized history, depending on whether A&E were real historical persons.
The available results of genetical research suggest that we are not all descendants of a single original pair, at least if the pair lived within the last 100’000 years. Fossils of humans and closely related species support the long history of humanity.
This is just my current interpretation and it might be wrong. So far, I think it fits best to the available evidence, including both the details of the story and the conclusions of scientific research.
Thanks for posting. I think posts like this is really where the value of the forum is, for the most part.
It is complicated, as you indicate. I am a retired physician is a smallish community in semi-suburban Texas, that is strongly conservative, both politically and theologically. I am blessed to have a great pastor who is moderate in views and keeps our local church focused on Jesus.
That said, comments counter to science come up frequently from my friends and congregants. Most I try to ignore unless they are complete distortions of truth, or false statements. If they want to know what I think, I tell them, but seldom do they ask, as most know where I stand, and thankfully love me anyway.
The recent divisions in society encouraged by those profiting on strife have made it difficult. It sounds trite, but focusing on the two great commandments and loving God and loving people seems to be what keeps me from going off the rails. I struggle with how best to follow those commandments, and don’t always succeed. Give yourself grace, and give grace to others, as I think many on both sides struggle with it as well.
Thanks so much for replying. I am glad to be be reminded of how important it is to seek to love all other, even those we disagree with as a outpouring of our love of God. I appreciate hearing how you handle discussions with your friends and congregants. I think I’ve built up the common fear of needing to be certain of my faith. Much of my spiritual problems come from doubting whether or not I’m even a Christian. So I think I get very anxious thinking that since now I both have spiritual doubts because of my personal life and have theological doubts because of evolution, the common evangelical response is to blame my doubts on my spiritual problems and not tackle the issues of faith and science. Hopefully that made sense. Even for me I have a hard time thinking that questioning of the Bible and the relationship between faith and science is only because of my purely spiritual personal problems.
Grace is so important for all of this I agree and I hope that being models of grace, we can create environments ourselves where people feel safe to question. And I’m hoping I can ask some good questions here in the future to help me on my own journey.
It might help to read Enns’ The Sin of Certainty. I too have doubts, and have come to embrace doubt and mystery as a part of faith, rather than seeing it as a failing or a barrier. I think our understanding will always be lacking on this side of heaven.
Another great book that helps to overturn the idea that doubt is a sin is Greg Boyd’s “Benefit of the Doubt: breaking the idol of certainty”.
A blurb for the book: “Boyd rejects the idea that a person’s faith is as strong as it is certain. In fact, he makes the case that doubt can enhance faith”.
BioLogos will (hopefully soon) be publishing a small group Bible study on the Image of God that my friend Catherine McNeil and I wrote specifically to help people introduce their church communities to science/faith discussions and the kind of content BioLogos engages. It’s a Bible study and most of it is just Bible studying, but each week begins with a short interview with a ministry worker, professor, or Bible scholar who is invovled in work at the intersection of faith and science and the “next steps” sections point people to resources that help people become more engaged in faith/science topics.
Personally, I don’t think attempting to address issues like evolution or climate change head on in a church setting is going to be very effective. We need to work on who people trust for information and who people identify with as part of their circle of influence and influencers. We need to promote the idea that “science is good” and introduce people to Christian role models they can trust in scientific professions. It’s only when people start to feel like these people are on my team that they are going to put aside the defensive and combative posture that often accompanies the cognitive dissonance of being challenged on longheld views they have absorbed from other people they trusted.
I’m on the outside looking in, but it is very refreshing to hear people on the inside coming to the same conclusions I have.
Even someone on the outside looking in, you always have good insights into the community dynamics.
I think the most important thing to understand and accept is that these issues regarding interaction between religious belief and science are not relevant to what Christianity is really about and bringing them to church is pretty much like bringing other non-relevant issues to church like politics – likely to create controversy and division, while distracting everyone from the essential message of Christianity.
But what do you do when church leaders bring up issues like this and take a stand on such things contrary to yours? You can certainly ignore it, especially when you have a lot invested in that particular church. But of course, when you are just giving the church a try and deciding whether this is the church for you then you likely need to look elsewhere. There are plenty of churches which do better. To be sure finding the right balance you can feel comfortable with isn’t always easy.
Personally, I went from Calvary Chapel (which got me interested in evangelical Christianity) to Vineyard, then to Church of the Nazarene. By contrast, Potter’s House, Assembly of God, and Christ Rising in the Valley for all Nations made me feel uncomfortable, while others just didn’t interest me enough to keep going. To be sure my beliefs are not totally in line with any of them. Depending on how opinionated you are that might be a bit too much to expect.
One good option is to discuss with the leader privately.
There is a risk that the leader is not an understanding type and may take differing opinions with a negative and oppressive attitude. Such leaders are toxic and may cause a toxic atmosphere in the church community. In the worst case, that hastens leaving the church community.
I absolutely understand this. I’m coming out of my A/G church that I was apart of for 15yrs, the church I grew up in. I’ve settled temporarily for a Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) partially just because of more flexibility regarding secondary theological issue.
I agree overall that religious belief and science might be better separated in the big church congregation, and those discussions should be separated maybe to more private relationships and small groups in the church. I think the struggle I am having is getting to that point of vulnerability with other church member specifically because me moving churches and my struggles are so deeply entwined to the issue of reconciling faith and science. And that seems tremendously difficult to have those conversations outside of forums like these where the people gathered here want to have those conversations. Many people in the church cant/aren’t willing to have these conversations and that seems like a big roadblock for me.
Also thank you to the both of you for recommending those books. I’m familiar with Pete Enns and I’ve wanted to check out that book for a little while. Also I remember hearing about Greg Boyd about his book on the Caananites so I’ll have to add both to my reading list.
Are you familiar with Holy Post? They have a whole bunch of stuff now to try to build community with people who are mostly still in Evangelical churches but who are not on board with Christian Nationalism, hardcore patriarchy, or the anti-science stuff. It’s a good way to connect with resources and other people who think similarly. From experience, it’s easier to get people to engage with their stuff initially than with BioLogos. But it can be a gateway. And many of the people who hang out and participate in those spaces will share your views and also your struggles and questions. https://www.holypost.com
EFCA is part of the same coalition of evangelical free churches than my home church in Finland. I do not know the situation in America but here in Finland, Evangelical Free Church is one of the most open churches to questioning and challenging the prevailing teachings. Disagreements in secondary theological issues are understood and accepted as part of the process of learning. That is one reason why it is my home church.
The Finnish version is congregational, meaning that the Evangelical Free Church is a coalition of relatively independent but cooperating local churches. That means there are some differences between the local churches in the atmosphere and the flavor of teaching. What is true for most congregations may not be true for every local church, although the workers have gone through the same theological seminar.
Visiting a local church, discussing with the people and listening to the teaching is a good way to see what kind of community it is.
I am actually! I love the Holy Post and have been listening to them for awhile. Same with the Language of God podcast. Kinda for me they’re two solid groups tackling different facets of the Christian life which is really important. But I do agree as the more outward facing problems of treating our neighbor right in this polarized age, Holy Post has a lot that they promote as a way forward for the church and they have been a valuable resource for me. Honestly my dad has started to change some of his positions due to the Holy Post, which is encouraging and gives me faith that others can come around too 