Evolution Weekend 2014: An Interview with Lloyd Geering

From the Big Bang to God by Lloyd GeeringIn honor of Evolution Weekend 2014, which will take place February 7–9, we have invited Westar Fellow Lloyd Geering to reflect on religion and science, evolution, and his latest book From the Big Bang to God: Our Awe-Inspiring Journey of Evolution. Geering is Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. A public figure of considerable renown in New Zealand, he is in constant demand as a lecturer and as a commentator on religion and related matters on both television and radio. He is the author of many books including Such Is Life! A Close Encounter with Ecclesiastes (2010) and Coming Back to Earth: From Gods, to God, to Gaia (2009). In 2001, he was honored as Principal Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. In 2007, he received New Zealand’s highest honor, the Order of New Zealand.

Q: You recently celebrated 70 years as a Presbyterian minister. Yet From the Big Bang to God owes at least as much to science as to theology and philosophy. What led you to write a book that weaves science so deeply into the story of who we are?

The idea that science and religion have little in common and, may even be in conflict, is a modern misconception that is no earlier than the 19th century. Theology, as my teacher defined it, is the enterprise by which faith thinks itself through and relates itself to all other knowledge. That is a very tall order in these days of the ‘knowledge explosion’. ‘Science’ etymologically means ‘knowledge’ though today it usually refers to knowledge obtained by the empirical method. But only look at the way the Bible starts with cosmology. That is where theology starts today too. The first chapter of Genesis expresses the cultural knowledge (primitive science) of 2500 years ago when ‘science’ simply had to make eminently good sense to be convincing. This ancient view of the universe has been made obsolete by modern cosmology and so theology must be reshaped accordingly. I see my book as just as much an exercise in theology as it is in science.

Q: Sometimes people express a sentiment to “live and let live” in debates around topics like evolution. How much leeway do we have in this? What is the value of coming to a consensus and sharing a Great Story of human origins, like the one you’ve told in From the Big Bang to God?

As my book makes clear, the concept of evolution applies not only to the development of life itself but also to the development of human knowledge. It too has evolved. When Genesis 1 was first compiled it was a remarkable break-through, so convincing that it remained viable for 2000 years and eventually led to the rise of empirical science. But to base theology upon Genesis 1 today, as some fundamentalists do, leads not only to bad theology but to false theology and hence and idolatry (the most heinous sin of all). Since each great civilization has been based on a common Great Story of where we came from, so I have told this new Great Story in the hope that it, or something very like it, can become the basis for a new global civilization.

Q: The organizers of Evolution Weekend say on their website: “When some define religion so narrowly that it is categorically opposed to evolutionary ideas, or any of the findings of science, it both demeans and diminishes religion.” Does this resonate with you? How would you describe the relationship between religion and science?

I agree with the statement, believing there is much confusion in the popular mind today about both religion and science. By science is meant knowledge that we treat as reliable because it has been subjected to tests that confirm it. But this does not mean that current science is absolute and final for all time. Scientific knowledge is always subject to review and modification. For, example, Newtonians physics has been modified by quantum physics. Religion is even more subject to change for it contains a strong subjective component and must always be consistent with what is the current state of scientific knowledge. Of course much depends on how one defines religion. Much popular understanding of religion is far too narrow, which is why an increasing number say they are not religious. There is no one generally accepted definition. I choose to define religion as “a total mode of the interpreting and living of life”.

Q: You mentioned in a recent radio interview with Pastor John Shuck on Religion for Life that one of your most influential teachers, Helmut Rex, who came to New Zealand in 1939 as a refugee from Berlin, described the Christian tradition not as “a set of unchangeable truths” but rather as “growing path of faith in which one’s beliefs change from century to century depending upon the kind of cultural context in which you live.” How do you believe the great contemporary concern for the environment will affect this growing path of faith?

The new Great Story of evolution has not only replaced all the earlier Great Stories of where we came from but has alerted us to our earthly origins. (The biblical story was strangely not far away from it when it declared us to be made of the dust of the earth.) The important new science of ecology has alerted us to the way in which all forms of life form a living whole with one another and their common environment, just as the trillions of cells in the human body work together for the common good. If we do not learn how to fit in with the environment that has shaped us we shall bring about our own demise as a species, and go the way of the dinosaurs. The former great commandment to obey the revealed will of God in his heaven above has evolved into the obligation to stand in awe of this amazing universe, respect all forms of life and fulfill our duties to the earthly environment on which we depend.

Stones & BonesQ: What gives you hope for the future? What advice would you give to young faith leaders who are looking for ways to bring together scientific and religious truths?

One of the things I learned to appreciate more deeply in writing this book was the amazing capacity the universe displays for the formation of evermore complex wholes. The human species is the most complex whole in the universe that we are aware of. In the last ten thousand years we humans have come to dominate the earth in a way no other species has done. In the recent phenomenon of globalization we have reached the point where we face the choice of building an harmonious community or destroy ourselves by mutual hostility and war. ... The evolutionary process so characteristic of the universe gives us hope. Look at how it led to the harmony of the hive of bees. So, though there are no guarantees, this awe-inspiring universe may yet lead us humans to overcome our self-centredness and blindness and learn how to evolve into a global social organism. The unifying instrument is love. That is why the advice of Jesus to “love your enemies” remains so basic to our future. The more we understand evolution and co-operate with it the more this is likely to happen.

God: The Modern Problem

Ancient Christians thought of God as an absolute, unchanging essence, based on the thought of the philosopher Plato. This underpins our concepts of the Trinity and even the salvation story of Jesus's death and resurrection. But with the rise in the Middle Ages of nominalism, a new philosophy that emphasizes language over substance, the ancient view of God began to fall apart. Christianity is still struggling to pick up the pieces. Here David Galston, Ecumenical Chaplain at Brock University and author of Embracing the Human Jesus: A Wisdom Path for Contemporary Christianity, describes this problem in more detail. He explores different attempts to save or defend God against the problems presented by modern thinking, and introduces some ideas for moving forward with the historical Jesus.

David Galston presented the above talk during the Once and Future God Session of the "Early Christianity: Heritage or Heresies?" conference, sponsored by the Westar Institute in October 2013. He refers a couple times to the God Seminar: this is a new project by scholars affiliated with Westar that is still in the planning stages. You can also watch a discussion of the future of Christianity from this same session.

The lecture is available as five separate video clips. You can watch all five continuously below, or visit the YouTube playlist to browse different topics.

Once and Future God Video and Twitter Feed (Q&A)

The video above is an excerpt from the Once and Future God session of Westar Institute's Early Christianity: Heritage or Heresies? Conference (October 2013). Westar Fellows David Galston, Joseph Bessler, Jarmo Tarkki, and John C. Kelly discussed with attendees topics including God language and the future of Christianity in post-modern society. Following an audience member's question about whether human beings are "hardwired" for spirituality, the conversation turned to why so many people are living more secular, "a-religious" lives. To learn more about The Once and Future God, you can visit a summary of the day-long session and explore the timeline of live updates from the session below.*

*Please note that while every effort was made to present the material of the session accurately, the Twitter updates above are compressed summaries and should not be interpreted as the speakers' exact statements.

When Was Acts Written? Not in the First Century.

Scholars Study Book of Acts as Second-Century Myth of Christian Origins

Press Release November 1, 2013

Polebridge Press recently released the final report of a decade-long study on the biblical book of Acts carried out by the Acts Seminar, a collaborative research effort led by scholars affiliated with the Westar Institute. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report was launched at Westar Institute’s “Early Christianity: Heritage or Heresies?” Conference in Santa Rosa, California, on Friday, October 25th. Members of the Acts Seminar were present to comment on the report. The Acts Seminar scholars set out to answer the questions, "When was Acts written? What historically can Acts tell us about Christian origins?"

Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report

Available from Polebridge Press

The dominant view in Acts scholarship places Acts around 85 CE, not because of any special event linking the book of Acts to that date but as a compromise between scholars who believe it was written by an eye-witness to the early Jesus movement and those who don’t. Acts and Christian Beginnings argues for a more rigorous approach to the evidence. The Acts Seminar concluded that Acts was written around 115 CE and used literary models like Homer for inspiration, even exact words and phrases from popular stories. “Among the top ten accomplishments of the Acts Seminar was the formation of a new methodology for Acts,” editors Dennis Smith and Joseph Tyson explained. “The author of Acts is in complete control of his material. He felt no obligation to stick to the sources. He makes them say what he wants them to say.”

The Acts Seminar demonstrated that the author of Acts used a collection of Paul’s letters to create a believable itinerary for Paul’s journeys throughout the Mediterranean. Previously, scholars saw the correspondence between Paul’s letters and Acts as proof that they were written in the same era. In fact, the reverse is true. Acts used Paul’s letters as a source while shying away from Pauline theology, which lost popularity in the second century.

“It’s tempting to ask, why bother reading a book we can demonstrate is not historically what it claims to be?” Tyson said. Yet Acts remains important as a window into the world of early second-century Christianity. Acts succeeded in creating a “charter myth,” a narrative constitution for the young Jesus movement. “Acts offered a major reinterpretation of Paul so powerful it hasn’t been undone until this century,” Tyson explained. “Narrative is so powerful, so effective,” Smith added. “Luke benefits from following this model. It’s good storytelling.”

Dennis Smith

Editor Dennis Smith Discusses the New Acts Seminar Report

Marcion: Forgotten “Father” and Inventor of the New Testament

Christianity owes a major debt to a man with no direct connection to Jesus of Nazareth or Paul of Tarsus – a man labeled a heretic by the forerunners of orthodox Christianity. Marcion (c. 95-165 CE) was a shipbuilder, possibly ship owner, from Pontus, a small region in what is now northern Turkey. We know little else about him, except that at some point in his career he joined the Christian community in Rome only to find himself embroiled in debate with the leadership there. Ultimately they were unable to resolve their differences, and the Marcionite community broke from other Jesus followers of that era. It is unknown how separate the communities were in practice, but in some parts of the ancient world Marcionites were called "Christians" while groups with closer ties to Judaism were called "Nazoreans."

Jason BeDuhn gives a lecture on Marcion

Jason BeDuhn

Marcion holds a lasting legacy for Christians as the inventor of the New Testament. Jason BeDuhn, author of The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, argues that Marcion not only put together the very first Christian canon of scriptures, he gave Christianity very idea of doing so. At the Early Christianity: Heritage or Heresies? Conference in Santa Rosa, California, BeDuhn spoke about the important role Marcion played in shaping Christian identity. This begins with the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in the Roman Empire. “A good contemporary analogy is the interest some modern White Americans have in Native American religion and culture,” he said, “A similar thing was going on with Gentile fans of Judaism in the ancient world. They wanted to take on foreign spirituality and practices.” However, Jews rebelled multiple times against the Roman Empire in the second century, and Gentile Christian groups fled association with them, taking on new forms in the process.

Marcionites were pesco-vegetarians who embraced pacifism. Women held high leadership roles, at least prominently enough that critics of Marcionites complained about the role women were playing in the movement. They did not believe the god of Jesus was the god of the Jews. They believed the god of the Jews was a creator god that ruled based on judgment and violence, which Marcion argued by appealing to violent texts in the Hebrew scriptures. Marcion saw the god of Jesus as an entirely new being, a higher god who provided escape from the judgment of this world. Most importantly, Marcionites had something no other Christians had: a canon of their own scriptures.

Challenging Traditional Views of Marcion

Critics of Marcion like Tertullian and Epiphanius complained that Marcion cut and edited scripture to fit his beliefs. Biblical scholar Adolf von Harnack accepted this claim in his definitive text on Marcion, Marcion: The Gospel of an Alien God (1920). However, Tertullian and Epiphanius lived several generations after Marcion, and they assumed the New Testament they read already existed in Marcion's era. It didn't. Marcion's critics were reading history backward instead of forward: there was no New Testament yet.

We tend to assume the version of Christianity we see today as inevitable, but actually there were many possible ways for Christianity to develop. Christianity may never have become a religion with a set of scriptures at all. Christians may have continued to interpret and reinterpret Hebrew scriptures, rely on oral storytelling, consider themselves Jewish, and so on. The very attitude of Marcionites setting themselves apart from Jews led them to declare a "new" testament, and that has made all the difference.

Marcion's New Testament

What did Marcion's version of the New Testament look like? It had two parts: the Evangelion, which was a gospel related to the Gospel of Luke, and the Apostolikon, a collection of Paul's letters. Marcion is our first witness to six of the ten letters now considered to be authentic by modern biblical scholars. Biblical scholars came to the conclusion that only some letters attributed to Paul are authentic (most exclude 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, for example). The evidence from Marcion supports this finding. The inclusion of Paul's letters in the New Testament was by no means certain. Rather, Marcion's choice to include the letters succeeded in pushing other communities to do the same thing when they came up with competing canons of scripture, although it took his competitors two hundred years to establish the canon now found in Bibles today.

This is a very different way of looking at the Marcionite New Testament, and scholars will need to compare the edition reconstructed by Jason BeDuhn to determine how this changes our view of how early Christianity developed. For example, the Evangelion is much shorter than the Gospel of Luke, and it is not clear whether they were both written by the same person for different communities, or if a later editor added new material to the Gospel of Luke. Also, BeDuhn found that the Marcionite version of Romans 9-11 is completely different, yet this text has been used by some scholars as a key to Pauline theology. Regardless of how these findings eventually play out in scholarly discussion and debates, BeDuhn identifies four significant contributions of Marcion to Christian history:

The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon

Available from Polebridge Press

  1. Christians owe the idea of a "new" testament to Marcion.
  2. Christians owe to Marcion the particular form of the New Testament.
  3. Christians owe to Marcion the prominence of the voice of Paul in the New Testament.
  4. Finally, Christians owe to Marcion a Christian identity built on a special scripture all their own.