Of Cabbages and Kings

Note: I wrote this post in April 2009. I left Calvary Chapel a few months later and became Catholic on 3 April 2010. See the series of posts starting here for why I became Catholic. I don’t necessarily hold the views expressed in this post anymore (at least, not all of them).

I currently attend church at the Calvary Chapel in Newport News. Calvary Chapel is a family of churches (they inexplicably refuse to be called a denomination) that promotes the sort of doctrines and interpretations of the Bible that you would expect of an American conservative Protestant church. They are probably a bit more charismatic than most churches, and so put more emphasis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including the miraculous gifts. But by and large, the teachings you can hear from the pulpit of a Calvary Chapel will agree substantially with any number of other conservative Protestant churches.

Of course, I tend to agree with many of the views of the typical conservative Protestant church, and of my church in particular. If I didn’t, I would attend church somewhere else. But over the last several months, I’ve had a growing discontent with my church and my own beliefs. If you’ll excuse the pop culture reference (I’ll try to keep them to a minimum), I feel like Neo while he was still trapped in the Matrix: as if there’s something wrong but you can’t put your finger on what it is, as if there’s a higher truth right in front of you that you can’t quite see.

I’ve been learning about Catholicism in an attempt to see if there’s something they have that Protestants somehow forgot, some truth that got thrown by the wayside in the name of the Protestant Reformation. I’ve also started to look into the various other Christian churches, trying to piece together the full spectrum of the “Catholic” (i.e. universal) Christian Church. Studying this involves reading a fair amount about church history and doctrine, and I have not yet read enough to offer any particular insight at this time. But if you think about it, it seems almost certain that there are aspects to God and his relationship with us that are not fully explained by mainstream conservative American Protestant Christianity, a subset of the Christian Church which in my experience tends to forget that there are other branches of the one Church founded by Jesus himself.

Let me be clear about one thing: I fully believe in the triune God of the Bible (although the concept of the Trinity was made explicit only after the Bible was written), that Christianity is the one true religion and that Jesus is the only way to God. As far as I can remember, I have never doubted this. From time to time, I may question certain points of theology, or particular interpretations of the Bible, but I will never deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I hope above all else that I will be one of those who is “invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:9), and I believe that through the death and resurrection of Jesus and by the grace of God, I will be on the guest list.

That said, I have on multiple occasions heard teachings in my current church that I disagree with. I hesitate to say anything that could be taken as criticism of my pastor (Tony Clark), mainly because I am wary of criticizing the Lord’s anointed leader of my church (cf. 1 Samuel 26:9 and Acts 23:3–5). I can see that God is working through my church and my pastor, and that my church has that life given by God which is all too hard to find in many churches. So I do not at all mean that my church is on the wrong path in general terms, or that Pastor Tony is misleading people in any serious way. But some of the teachings I hear in this church only contribute to my sense that I don’t quite believe the same things that the majority of the church accepts.

Today this sense was more acute than ever before. This morning, Pastor Tony started teaching through the book of Genesis, starting naturally enough in chapter one. We were a mere four words into the first verse, “In the beginning, God,” when he declared that these words disprove evolution. The reasoning goes like this: God existed from the beginning, so he is qualified to tell us what happened since no one else was there at the time, except apparently the angels. Because no human was there to observe what was happening, scientific theories on the origin of life and the universe are therefore necessarily incorrect.

This is, of course, a common argument among Young Earth creationists. Never mind the confusion between the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution, which are separate theories but usually tied together in the minds of these creationists. Also, I am not going to argue for or against evolution here. (Actually, I never even took a real biology class in high school or college, so I feel particularly unqualified to discuss the merits of any theory in biology.) But to claim that science can offer no insight into the history of the universe simply because no one was there betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of science.

Few people will question scientific data such as the diameter of our galaxy (100,000 light years). Who is at the other end of the galaxy holding a tape measure? Why, if it is acceptable to determine such distances through indirect means, is it not acceptable to apply the laws of physics to the current state of the universe and extrapolate backwards?

The real point of disagreement between science and Young Earth creationism, of course, is that if you believe that the universe was created in six literal days a few thousand years ago, you will simply reject all scientific claims to the contrary on the basis of faith. This is fine, but if you take this position, it is futile to attack scientific theories that require the universe to be older. You do not, after all, base your beliefs of the history of the universe on science, so what difference does it make if science comes to a different conclusion than you do?

All throughout the sermon this morning, the pastor ridiculed scientific theories, throwing out naive claims about the unreliability of scientific data. Multiple people in the congregation vocally agreed with his jabs at science, edging the congregation toward a level of excitement rarely seen when listening to a sermon on any topic. Is this what conservative Christianity has become? Does everyone show up in church just to hear what their “itching ears want to hear” (2 Timothy 4:3)? Is the church more about solidarity than seeking out the truth of God, no matter how inconvenient it is to reconcile it with our preconceived notions?

I believe that God gave us minds and the curiosity to understand how the universe works for a reason. I also believe in the value of science to describe the natural world (that is, the world excluding any supernatural phenomena or influences). This should come as no surprise, considering that I am working on a master’s degree in physics. My pastor, if today’s sermon is any indication, never studied science to any serious extent. I am quite content to let my pastor report his research in his area of expertise, which is the Bible. He can quote thousands upon thousands of verses from all over the Bible. At one time, I think he was well on his way to memorizing the Bible. But I do not go to my dentist for advice on my finances; in the same vein, I do not ask my pastor to provide his opinions on science.

This is somewhat of an aside, but just for the record, I believe that the universe is some 13 or 14 billion years old. I have heard the Biblical arguments against this (many times), and I reject them. I still believe that the Bible is true, and if you are interested, I will tell you my interpretation of the first couple chapters of Genesis.

My main problem with my pastor advocating Young Earth creationism, other than his unnecessary attacks on science from this morning, is not that he interprets the Bible differently than I do. Instead, I get the impression that he simply dismisses any other interpretation of the first two chapters of the Bible out of hand. It is a dangerous thing to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is absolutely correct, that anyone who disagrees with you is gravely mistaken. The Bible itself is truth and speaks with the authority of God, but any human’s attempt to understand what the Bible says is certain to be incomplete at best.

I have on occasion toyed with the idea of finding a new church, but I have decided to stay at my current church for this reason: I believe it’s important to discuss the Bible and theology with people who do not fully agree with your own viewpoints. To quote my friend Steve Goss, “conservative Christianity has a particular interpretation of scripture that is very interconnected and internally coherent.” That doesn’t mean that it’s correct. We must agree on the fundamental teachings of Christianity (Jesus’ death and resurrection, our inability to save ourselves, etc.), but we should be willing to discuss some of the more peripheral contemporary beliefs and consider the possibility that we have been mistaken. And so I will remain at my church, a heretic of sorts, promoting discussions and suggesting that the mainstream viewpoint may be wrong.

I certainly have not figured everything out, and much of my own theology is ill-defined at the moment, pending my investigation into other Christian beliefs and traditions. But may God protect all of us from complacency and from the belief that we have already attained a complete knowledge of God and of his word.

Tags: Christianity