If you live in Grand Rapids, then you are probably aware of the recent brouhaha brewing over at Calvin College. A week ago The Grand Rapids Press reported that one of their professors, John Schneider, has taken an “early retirement” in response to massive controversy surrounding a Fall 2010 article on human origins that appeared in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. He and another professor from Calvin, Daniel Harlow, challenge the Church’s traditional position regarding creation and sin. Harlow appears to have retained his current position as professor of biblical and early Jewish studies, even though his article similarly deconstructs the Church’s (particularly the Protestant) understanding of the Adam and Fall narratives of Gen 1-3. Both men find recent advances in modern science—particularly post Human Genome Project—invalidate the long-held doctrines on humanity that explain who we are, how we came to be, and how we became so busted. NPR’s Morning Edition did a story on the “early retirement/dismissal” story and interviewed them for their views, which made the thing go national (Huffington Post and Gawker, among others, did pieces on the issue).

Note some of the language Harlow uses in response to modern science and in rebuttal to the historic understand of human origin:

Modern science has amply demonstrated that phenomena such as predation, death, and the extinction of species have been intrinsic and even necessary aspects of life on earth for billions of years. (179)

The ever-growing hominid fossil record unmistakingly shows that human beings did not appear suddenly but evolved gradually over the course of six million years. (179)

Most recently, research in molecular biology indicates that the genetic diversity of the present human population cannot possibly be traced back to a single couple living in Mesopotamia a few thousand years ago. (180)

Recent studies in primatology, sociobiology, and phylogenetics are also pertinant to the historicity of Adam and Even and to the Christian doctrines of the Fall and original sin. Here a range of evidence establishes that virtually all of the acts considered “sinful” in humans are part of the natural repertoire of behavior among animals…behaviors including deception, bullying, theft, rape, murder, infanticide, and warefare to name but a few…Though not completely determined by genes, animal and human behavior are strongly influenced by them. (180)

Only over time would [humans] have developed a suffiecient spiritual awareness to sense that many selfish behaviors are contrary to God’s will, and the moral imperative to transcend those behaviors. (180)

I’d say these are pretty potent, pointed claims that challenge key aspects of the historic Christian faith, particularly the natures of creation, humanity, and sin.

Before I get into my own thoughts—which to be honest I’m still marinating on—I’d love to hear yours. If the Church changes her beliefs regarding human origin and the human condition, what implications could that have? For me I’m specifically thinking about the implications regarding the Imago Dei (human nature) and original sin (human condition).

I also wonder about what story should drive the Church and her beliefs: the story of modern science or the story of the Holy Scriptures. When there appears to be a disconnect between the two stories, which one should rule the Church? I see this issue—that of metanarratives/reality defining stories—to have massive implications for the Church and other doctrines, as well, including Jesus’ deity and the resurrection [What happens when science says it’s impossible that another human being could rise from the dead; or it’s impossible that a) there is a Higher Supreme Being (i.e. God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth) and b) said Higher Supreme Being could become a human being (i.e. Jesus Christ).

So three issues I see: Image of God, original sin, and stories. I’d be interested in thoughts on all three, and I suspect I’ll have some of my own to throw back up here in the next few days as I give more thought to these issues (specifically that of historical Adam vs. science). I really haven’t considered Schneider’s, Harlow’s, and others arguments before, so I’d like to think more about this as I think these issues are massive implications to God’s Story of Rescue.