A month or two back, I wrote about troubles at Calvin College, in western Michigan. A couple of the religion professors wrote articles about the implications of modern thinking about human evolution for the Calvinistic (essentially the Augustinian) take on Adam and Eve and original sin. (In my first piece, I mention John Schneider. You should also see Dan Harlow, “After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science,” in Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, vol. 62, no. 3, Sept. 2010: 179-195).
These theologians pointed out that today’s thinking about human origins absolutely negates the claim that the human species started with two and only two individuals and that this causes problems for a theology that sees the coming of Jesus and his death on the cross as needed to save humankind from the sinful acts of Adam and Eve when they ate the apple in Eden. Apart from anything else, it is ridiculous in the light of modern science to argue that no sin and pain existed before Adam and Eve, because the whole thing about Darwinian evolution is that it starts with the struggle for existence (leading to natural selection) and this means a lot of suffering and deceit and conflict and much more.
At the same time however, the Calvin theologians offered an escape, namely an earlier theological approach that originated with Irenaeus of Lyon. Here the creation is seen as a much more developmental affair, with Jesus as it were bringing things to completion. One big theological advantage to this approach is that the beginning story of humankind is not predicated on a couple of naïve humans taken in by a shifty snake, and the rest of the story a matter of God’s playing catch up, trying to salvage things from the mess. As they said, there is something theologically offensive about seeing the Christian story as “Plan B,” the half-time revision of strategy when the other team is ahead.
The president of Calvin went ballistic, and although the two miscreants had indeed received official permission to do the work that they were doing, they were—and still are—under threat of reprimand, even dismissal. Matters continue to unfold and will not be resolved at least until the summer. In the meantime, the college officials are doing their best to show just what a fix they (and by implication the college) are in. On the one hand, they want to run a modern educational establishment, offering as good an undergraduate degree as you can get in the land. And parenthetically one should say that this is no vain hope, because the Calvin faculty is absolutely first rate, the dedication to teaching (and learning) is second to none, and the faculties make a professor at a large state university in the South positively salivate with envy. On the other hand, they want to stick with a theology of the 16th century, dating back to the fourth century. And if science gets in the way, then too bad for science.
This becomes very much apparent from a recent Web page on the issue put out by the Calvin provost. As is too characteristic of such things, there is a fair amount of weaseling going on about the past events. Having given the two theologians the college blessing to pursue their thinking, there is now significant backtracking and rewriting of history. “Professor Schneider’s sabbatical proposal was reviewed by a faculty committee and recommended for approval. This recommendation received routine approval by another college committee and the board of trustees. This approval did not constitute approval of the ideas themselves or of the subsequent article.” One can only then ask, what did it constitute? And does nothing routine by the board of trustees have any standing? It is only when the board of trustees gives non-routine approval that it matters in the future?
More pertinently, the contradictions between science and religion are there for all to see. With respect to science we learn:
Calvin affirms that the one true God is the creator and designer of the universe.
The Calvin College Biology Department also clearly maintains that God, as the creator and designer of the universe, brought the world into being. With this as a firm foundation, the department also accepts the biological theory of evolution (descent with modification over time) to be the best explanation for understanding the commonality and diversity seen among all living creatures on earth.
With respect to religion we learn:
As a college that stems from the Reformed branch of Christianity, the bulk of what we believe is held in common with the Christian church around the world and throughout the ages. Three confessions adopted by Reformed Protestants centuries ago summarize important tenets of the Reformed faith: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. College faculty members are required to sign a Christian Reformed Church synodically-approved Form of Subscription in which they affirm these three forms of unity. Faculty pledge to teach, speak, and write in harmony with the confessions.
Just check out the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 3, Q & A 7.
Something has got to give. Either Calvin is going to move forward with modern science and the theology must be rethought, perhaps along the lines now being suggested or perhaps along other lines. Or Calvin is going to move backwards, and science is going to be censored in the light of established and unchangeable theology.
In a way I see this all as a bit of a cameo for the larger struggle going on in American today, over universal health care, over gay rights, over women’s control of their bodies, and much more. I wish I could feel confident of the outcome, but I don’t. For the moment, I just want you all to know what is going on at Calvin. I will report on future happenings. Meanwhile, I offer my great respect to two brave scholars, of whom their church and college should be proud, not embarrassed.
