Speech given at the opening of a conference on Christian Education at Gateway School, Harare
Monday 31st August 2009
By Senator David Coltart
Introduction
I am grateful for the invitation to open this conference. Although I am a lawyer, not an educationalist, I have been involved in Christian education in Zimbabwe since 1986 when the idea of setting up Petra School was first mooted in Mike and Jan Kreft’s dining room in Bulawayo. That initial discussion saw the establishment of Petra Primary the next year and subsequently Gateway.
In our founding vision we hoped to develop schools that would truly be salt and light in our society; schools that would take the best of Zimbabwe’s secular education system and refine it into a system more honouring of the totality of the Gospel. Having said that I must stress that I believe very firmly in the necessity of the separation of state and church and believe that whilst Christian schools and educators have arguably the most important role to play in the development of education in Zimbabwe we should never seek to enforce a system of Christian education in state schools. Our role I repeat should be that of salt and light; of establishing certain standards and principles rather than seeking to legislate evangelism. That balance requires much wisdom and that is why conferences such as these are so important. It is in that context that I wish to acknowledge the assistance I have received in preparing this speech from an excellent article entitled “Good religion needs good science†by the Rev. Dr. Malcolm Brown. See at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin/malcolmbrown.html .
Natural allies
Christian education has a unique advantage over secular. It is based on the belief that God has revealed himself to humanity in two books. The first is His revelation in history and in the Person of His Son, which is found in the written record (the Bible); and the second is His revelation of Himself in the record of nature (Romans 1:20). Good religion indeed needs good science.
At the outset IO should mention the obvious – that I am not a scientist and do not pretend to be one. Even if I were one there are many things about our universe that even the most brilliant scientists do not understand. It is in that context that I think on occasions we need to remember the simple words that are in contained in one of my 8 year old daughter Bethany’s favourite songs entitled “My God is so big!â€:
“My God is so big, so strong and so mighty,
There is nothing my God cannot do, that’s true!â€
Our God is indeed the God of absolute power, of eternity and infinity. We are well advised to always remember that lest we try to put our Lord in a box. But in acknowledging that God has given brains to use, and his revelation as mentioned above to assist us understand as best we can His glorious creation.
Real science is not only compatible with Christianity, but is truly a product of it. The Incarnation and the Resurrection of Jesus respectively achieved two major breakthroughs in the development of western science:
(I) The Incarnation revealed God’s commitment to and involvement in the world He had created, and so destroyed the Platonic dualism which separated thought and meaning from the substance of the material world. One of the reasons that experiments were not common in Greek pre-science, was due to this distinction and separation.
(II) The Resurrection was completely unexpected, unpredictable and unforeseen. This changed the “necessary†outlook of the Aristotelian world view to the modern Christian contingent view, in which we ask a very different type of question. In the Aristotelian world view, questions were of what philosophers call a “quaestio†type, which means that they presupposed a possible range of answers. They are the questions you ask when you think you already know the answer. You could not ask a “quaestio†type question about the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, because such a thing was beyond any available category. It made you ask a different type of question, which philosophers call an “interrogatio†question – which is one that is open ended, unqualified, and seeks after an answer to an entirely new phenomenon. This second type of question, unknown to Aristotle, lies at the foundation of modern science. It is unique to Judaeo-Christianity – no pagan would dream of asking those kinds of questions.
The relationship between Christian doctrine and the Scientific worldview is intimate and harmonious, and without Christianity, Modern Science would be impossible. The rational unity of the universe and the absolute distinction between God and His Created Order form the foundations of this definition. We do not need to force pupils into the position of rejecting science in order to embrace the Bible, or vice versa.
Christian schools, and Christian teachers in all schools, are therefore uniquely well–placed to give their pupils training in Christian thinking that takes both books seriously, and helps them to find a fully rounded understanding of God, creation, and man’s privileges and responsibilities within it.
Jesus himself invited people to observe the world around them and to reason from what they saw to an understanding of the nature of God (Matthew 6: 25–33). Christian theologians throughout the centuries have sought knowledge of the world and knowledge of God. For Thomas Aquinas there was no such thing as science versus religion; both existed in the same sphere and to the same end, the glory of God. Christians believe that the Bible contains all that we need to know to be saved from our sins, but do not claim that it is an encyclopaedia of all knowledge.
Unnatural enemies
Christian schools and Christian teachers are most effective when they take seriously the two books of God’s revelation. It is all the more tragic when sometimes Christianity and science find themselves at loggerheads. The church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy, and later realised its error. Some church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and more recently, from about 1961, a debate has raged regarding the age of the earth which I note is the focus of at least one session of this conference.
Before I tackle these subjects let me state that I think there is a danger that we allow ourselves to be overly focussed and divided on subjects such as the age of the earth, which certainly in the context of Zimbabwe today should not, in my view be our primary focus.
God’s revelation of Himself in both Scripture and Nature is perfect. What is imperfect in both cases is the ability of mere mortals to interpret His revelation. When there is apparent conflict, we may have misinterpreted Scripture or we may have misinterpreted Nature. In the trial of Galileo, Christians used Psalm 96:10 (The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved) as a proof text against Galileo’s theory of the rotation of the earth. In the end, Galileo’s telescope proved them wrong, not in their belief in the truth of Scripture, but in the way they insisted on interpreting it.
In the case of the age of the Earth, Scripture is silent. My understanding is that some Christians claim that we should calculate it from the evidence of Genesis, including the Hebrew word Yom, which I understand is correctly translated ‘day’, but very often does not mean a period of twenty four hours, and from biblical genealogies, which are notoriously difficult to understand, and certainly are not equivalent to modern genealogies. Science on the other hand speaks overwhelmingly with one voice. The vast majority of scientists, including most evangelical Christian scientists, agree that the earth is millions of years old. What few people realize is that this estimate is based not only on the findings of geology, but also on the evidence of astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, geochemistry and geophysics. Where Scripture is silent and Nature speaks with one voice, it is reasonable for the Christian to assume that Scripture is not particularly interested in the age of the Earth, and to look for answers to the question in Nature (recognizing that the exact age of the Earth will constantly be revised and corrected). The proper Christian reaction should in my view be neither dismay nor rejection, but to join the psalmist in saying, When I look at the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast established…O Lord our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth (Psalm 8. 4,9).
When The Origin of Species was first published in 1859, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was welcomed by many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, both in Europe and in the United States, as fresh evidence of the creative genius of God. It has been described as the greatest unifying theory in biology, which gives meaning to what had previously been a bewildering chaos of facts.
Darwinism does raise important and difficult questions for Christians. It is quite clear that Genesis is unambiguous about the uniqueness of mankind as created in the image of God, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the Fall as a historical event. It is also clear that the Book of Genesis is no ordinary book of history. On the contrary, it is unique not only in the Bible but in the whole of Ancient Near Eastern literature as a book which is certainly not describing a myth, but is “imaginative, poetic, pictorial and doxological (glory-giving, in the style of worship) rather than clinically descriptive and coldly prosaic in the dead-pan scientific manner†(J. I. Packer). The first chapters of Genesis are not a scientific account of how life developed. Those who believe otherwise are in effect imposing upon the relevant texts a modernist mind-set alien to the world of the original authors. In an attempt to defend the Bible, ironically in my view, they are not being biblical enough. They are refusing to hear the Bible speak in its own language and with its own aims. Like the opponents of Galileo, there is a danger of missing its real message in an attempt to impose their understanding upon it.
There is nothing in Darwin’s scientific theory itself to concern Christians, but Christians will not accept religious deductions from Darwinism that compromise the truths about God, mankind, creation and the Fall that Genesis teaches so clearly. Darwinism cannot adjudicate on the existence of God, His purpose in Creation, or the unique place that He has given mankind in Creation. For answers to those questions we must turn to the Book of Genesis.
Darwinism becomes a concern to Christians only when it is misused as a social or ethical philosophy. It has sometimes slipped into a rather naïve optimism which sees the human race becoming better and better all the time. Another danger is ‘Social Darwinism’, in which the strong in society flourish and losers go to the wall. From this social misapplication of Darwin’s theories have sprung insidious forms of racism and other forms of discrimination which are more horribly potent for having the appearance of scientific “truth†behind them. At that point Christians will oppose the hideous misuse of a brilliant scientific theory.
Darwinism does raise very difficult questions about the origins of man and of evil. It is not easy to correlate the data of Scripture and Nature. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been massively modified since he first described it, and no doubt it will continue to be modified as we understand the evidence better. The same is true of our understanding of Scripture. The danger comes when we claim for our interpretation of Scripture an infallibility that belongs properly to Scripture itself.
In this regard we need to take heed of the Lord’s counsel to Job recorded in Job 38:2-5 :
“Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer me.
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions?
Surely you know!â€
I reiterate that there are many things we simply cannot comprehend at this stage of mankind’s development. A danger for me is that from this position of relative ignorance we allow the entire debate regarding Christian education to be dominated by these issues and that that undermines our focus on more fundamental concerns such as evangelism and the Christian’s role of being salt and light in any society.
Key for Zimbabwe’s future
I give the three examples of Galileo, Darwin and the age of the earth to show how dangerous it is when Christians claim infallibility in their interpretation of the data of Scripture or Nature, and when they effectively ignore one or other of the two books that God has given us. The disastrous consequences have been seen in Zimbabwe’s history in rather different areas.
Few countries have a higher proportion of their population who call themselves Christian, and who attend church and read their Bibles regularly. Yet few countries have had so disastrous a history going back over one hundred years. This period has been marked by oppression, tyranny, racism, tribalism, discrimination, violence, and a callous disregard for human rights. How can it be that our schools and churches have produced generation after generation with so good a knowledge of what the Bible says and so little ability to apply it to the issues that our society faces?
Why is it that we have not considered and taught effectively what it means to be salt and light in Zimbabwe? Why is it that so little attention has been paid to the application, for example, of Isaiah 58 – the true fast – in Zimbabwe?
We need scientists who are able to integrate the findings of Science and Scripture with genuine reverence to God’s self-disclosure in both. Even more urgently in Zimbabwe, we need Christian men and women working in the fields of politics, human rights, the environment, law, education, medicine and many other fields who have learnt to integrate their Christian beliefs with their field of expertise. We desperately need young Christians who can intelligently and effectively inform the debate on a new constitution in Zimbabwe. We need to teach young men and women to take their Christian commitment beyond the walls of their church to their place of work in a way that transforms our country deeply and permanently. Christian schools have a unique expertise to train our young people not only to know the Bible but to apply it; to develop an integrated Christian worldview: in short to think Christianly.
I am sure that this conference can have a deep impact on Christian education in this country to the extent that it has that aim. I congratulate Gateway Primary School, and particularly its Headmaster Kevin Ricquebourg, for its initiative in making the conference possible, and for planning it, with its intriguing topics and impressive array of international speakers. I wish for you all a conference that is stimulating and encouraging, and is used by God to make a lasting impact on the minds and lives of our young people, and on the future of our country.