Sunday, Feb. 12, 7:00 – 9:00 p.m., Mudd Theater.

Click here for event flyer. Click here for more information.

Also, here is a conversation I had with Doug Pagitt regarding the Emergent Village Theological Conversation.

Hawking’s recent comments on God have thus unleashed a torrent of attention. In his forthcoming book, The Grand Design, he comments, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

If you know Hawking’s work, these comments won’t surprise you. Of course, he does conclude his Brief History of Time with the claim that if we could discover the fundamental laws of nature, “then we should know the mind of God.” No religious faith underlies this statement, however. The book as a whole argues that God plays no essential role in understanding the physical universe.

In fact, Hawking’s recent pronouncements about God echo the famous comment by the eighteenth-century successor to Newton, Laplace. The emperor Napoleon is said to have asked him, “But where is God in your physics?” Legend has it that the physicist Laplace responded, “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.”

One can even find the story that explains Hawking’s attitude. At one point he was invited to Rome by the Jesuits for a conference on cosmology. In his technical paper he explained the view for which he is famous, known as the Hartle-Hawking hypothesis: although the universe has a finite age (it has not existed forever), there is no t = 0, that is, no first moment of time. If there is no “moment of creation,” there is no place for a Creator.

Shortly after delivering his talk, Hawking and the other physicists were invited to an audience with the Pope. The Pope, he reports, told them that “it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.” Hawking quips, “I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference.”

It seemed to Hawking that the Pope was warning physicists away from the very questions where they could make the greatest progress. To accept that warning and to stay away from these questions would be to sell out as a scientist. It is as if, at that moment, Hawking resolved to have nothing more to do with the God idea. Or, to put it more carefully: he began to use the idea of God as shorthand for whatever would be the final physical theory about the origin of the universe.

Four Possible Answers

Now the $64,000 question: was he right? Cal Thomas gives a simple response on FOX News: scripture says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” So “if Hawking thinks it’s all foolishness, isn’t that evidence he is perishing?” For many of us, however, important questions of this sort require some rather deeper reflection. Consider the following four possibilities:

First, Richard Dawkins could be right. Shortly after Hawking’s conversations with the press, Dawkins hosted his own “webchat” on the topic. His interpretation was predictably much harsher than Hawking’s own: “Darwin kicked [God] out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace.”

As always, Dawkins’ hyper-critical construal of religion brings out the offensive squad for the Religion Team. The second option is that Dawkins is totally mistaken; physics does have need of the God hypothesis. The arguments are legion: the basic physical constants are “fine-tuned” for the emergence of life, which is firm evidence of God’s providential ordering of the cosmos. The regularities of natural laws can only be explained by God’s character and purpose. The fit between human cognitive capacities and the natural world — for example, our ability to do mathematical physics — is proof God meant us to recognize Him in the natural world. In short, advocates claim, the more physics advances, the more evidence there is of the existence and providential care of God.

Hawking’s third option falls somewhere between the first two. Science can only work when no questions are off limits. The explosive advances in science over the last centuries have removed physics’ dependence on theology. In particular, cosmology supports the “weak” anthropic principle (any universe we find ourselves in must be conducive to the evolution of intelligent life) but not the “strong” anthropic principle (this universe was designed to produce us). Quantum cosmology — using quantum physics to explain the origin of the universe — eliminates the need for any external “push” to get things started. Instead, quantum fluctuations, followed by a period of extremely rapid expansion (“inflation”), might be sufficient by themselves to explain the origin of the universe. And finally, Hawking and friends maintain, if an infinite number of universes in fact compose one “multiverse,” any biophilic features we observe are merely the luck of the draw in this particular universe. No inferences can be drawn about divine creative intent.

God and Mystery

But there is a fourth position. The truth is, recent developments in science do make conclusions about God more difficult. But do they really render the God hypothesis superfluous?

Here I would push back against Hawking. Religion that would block or control the growth of science should be resisted. But it’s simply not true that science has dissolved any role for mystery. As it advanced, twentieth-century physics actually expanded the place for the unknown. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle expresses limits on how fully we can know both the location and momentum of a particle, and the speed of light represents an absolute limit for the speed of information exchange. Limits of knowledge are not excuses for shutting down scientific inquiry and replacing it with answers based on scriptural authority. But they are profound reminders of how much we don’t know. Amazing advances in scientific knowledge lie ahead of us. But nothing in the history of science suggests that our knowledge will be limitless. Indeed, Stephen Hawking has been one of the great voices reminding us of this fact.

Richard Dawkins may wish to use Hawking’s comments to define science as the arch-rival of religion. Returning the compliment, religious commentators proclaim death to science in the name of religion. Careful observers will note that Stephen Hawking’s language has been more irenic. Still, he continues to proclaim that progress in science rules out any notion of God.

But here the great physicist overreaches himself. When believers use claims about God to handcuff science, they act wrongly. But no such conflict is produced when we recognize that deep mysteries lie beyond the limits of scientific knowledge. Religious faith has its origins here, beyond the bounds of empirical demonstration. To declare this region empty of the divine is as much an act of faith as it is to find God here.

Note: This post was originally published at the Huffington Post.

Yet some of us are still hanging in there. In fact, in the midst of the increasing skepticism, a number of good things are happening. For one, more people are speaking up about what’s wrong with the institutional church, making bolder calls for it to change and adapt. This is good. Don’t forget that Christianity has its heritage in the Jewish prophets, who took the religious institutions of their day to task for a multitude of sins. And the first-century rabbi whom Christians follow modeled himself on the great prophets of the Hebrew Bible. It’s high time for a more prophetic, more counter-cultural Christian faith.

Knowing the Doubts from the Inside…

Perhaps the best thing that’s happening is that those of us who remain are beginning to get it. We realize that “cultural Christianity” — religious belief and practice that’s “just obvious” because it’s been inherited from one’s parents and culture — is largely a thing of the past. The burden is now on believers to show why their tradition is still relevant in today’s world. As we know, many of our friends and critics doubt that it still is.

The ones who are best at speaking to a generation grown skeptical about religion are the ones who have felt the force of the criticisms, up close and personal. They are producing courageous (and widely read) manifestos for the future — books like Tony Jones’ The New Christians, Peter Rollins’ How (Not) to Speak of God, Diana Butler Bass‘s Christianity for the Rest of Us, and Brian McLaren‘s Everything Must Change.

The sad thing is: much of the institutional church is going to turn its back on this new generation of spiritual seekers. It will declare them too heretical, or it will find their questions too troubling. It will ask them to shut up and sing the old hymns.

In some ways, these new Christians expected that. They are meeting in homes, in office buildings, in pubs … and even in churches, when they are welcome there. They are finding what it means to form deep communities, to practice deep discipleship … and then to sort out the beliefs as they go. Soon, I predict, this new movement will begin to dwarf some of the more traditional forms of religious expression.

What to Call This Movement?

Years ago they were called “Jesus People.” More recently people have been talking excitedly about the “emerging church” movement. Brian McLaren describes it as a “generous orthodoxy” and “a new kind of Christianity.”

However you describe it, the movement breaks with the religious politics of division and calls for a return to a “big tent Christianity.” “Big tent” evokes the image of the revival tent that folks used to set up just outside of town. Here differences were (in theory) set aside while people sought transformation and a new direction in their faith. If you’re skeptical, follow it on the web and judge for yourself. People will be live-blogging the next “Big Tent” conference this Sept. 8-9 in Raleigh, NC, and many of the (mostly younger) leaders of the movement will be speaking.

“Big tent” is also a prophetic challenge to the rancorous debates and condemnations that are the public face of religion today. The Religious Left and the Religious Right look more and more like Washington: people sit on one side of the aisle or the other; everything they say and do seems to play just to their own party members. More and more of those in the younger generations are tired of the combative attitude. They look for something different, something more positive, from Christian faith.

What Do Emerging Christians Believe? Is It Biblical?

Let’s name the really contentious issue. The criticism one most frequently hears is that all the emergent church really stands for is a kind of lukewarm, perhaps slightly updated liberal theology. Is it true?

Although conservatives frequently make this charge, it does not seem to be accurate of the movement. Think of the “Emergent Conventions” that took place over the last decade, or the “Emergent Theological Conversations” that have continued, featuring theologians such as Jürgen Moltmann as discussion partners. Whether at the larger meetings, or the high-volume websites such as HomebrewedChristianity.com, or in small-group meetings around the country, I see young men and women deeply concerned, almost obsessed, with theological issues.

Neither their approach nor their conclusions fit the classic definition of liberal theology. They do not start with a clear philosophical position and then mould Christianity to fit. Their interest is not confined to the human dimension and implications of the faith. I find people preoccupied with Jesus’ enduring question, “Who do you say I am?” (Mt. 16:15). That humans are imperfect and in need of divine grace, that Jesus is unique and not “just another prophet,” that God is somehow active in the world, that Christianity must offer a hope and “good news” if it is to merit our attention, that discipleship should be serious and life-transforming — all these are themes that I hear heatedly debated, adapted, and adopted.

True, emerging Christians often don’t lead with these assertions. As Phyllis Tickle notes, their movement tends to be “belong … behave … believe” rather than “believe … behave … belong.” Given their stress on the Jesus of the gospels, their ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) focuses first on creating communities of acceptance and honesty, communities where questioning is okay. But neither community nor politics nor social action is the final goal. Across the movement I see a strong desire to rediscover a deep, vibrant form of incarnational Christian life and faith–one based not on an economy of exclusion but of embrace.

For this reason, it’s natural for emerging Christians to invite churches back to the “big tent” vision. The invitation extends to liberals who want to be able to say what is distinctively Christian about their progressive stance, and to evangelicals who want to really engage contemporary culture and thought from a biblical perspective. Some will decline this call to Christian unity for the sake of the purity of their non-negotiable doctrinal boundaries. But others, growing tired of the increasingly hostile disputes, are finding ways to proclaim a common vision.

Why It’s Urgent to Look for Common Ground

Many of the old religious institutions are withering away. People are voting with their feet on Saturday and Sunday mornings: “if that’s what religion is, I’m not interested.” Much changes in turbulent times–especially the face of religion. If “Christian” is just a label for warring factions on the Left and Right, each ridiculing the other and declaring themselves the only true heirs of Christ, then yes, more and more will become post-Christian.

But why associate Christianity only with this battle? Why not join the increasing number of those who want to leave it behind? The way we navigate our spiritual identities is changing; a revolution is afoot. Why limit spiritual practices only to the forms of the past? As the debates and distinctions of bygone eras cease to matter so much, new spaces of acceptance are opening up, bringing with them new forms of Christian practice. Should we not welcome them, rather than seeking to squelch them?

This piece was also published on the Huffington post at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-clayton-phd/should-we-all-be-postchri_b_698218.html

I’d have thought that transformation is a key concept in any and every strand of Christianity. Classical evangelicalism, for exam[le would be serious about sanctification – even if struggling with its social consequences – which is transformation. I can’t imagine any Christianity – indeed any religion – which would make a call to us to remain as we are.

Beautifully put. It would have been better for me to say “But to those who oppose ‘big tent Christianity’ and all moves in that direction…”  The day I responded to Ian, the internet was filled with hostile attacks on me and on the Raleigh conference that opens in ten days. There are certainly those who think that emphasizing Christian unity as Brian McLaren and I and the other speakers are doing betrays Christ. They say that we must emphasize the differences in order to judge the many, many people who hold false theologies.

It’s not for me, for anyone, to define the boundaries of the tent. In Raleigh some will join us for whom it’s very uncomfortable to do so, since their colleagues will condemn them for having sold out merely because they are sharing a stage with some of us. I admire their courage and Christian vision.

And let it be said that there are some on the liberal end who will condemn us for meeting together with more conservative Christians rather than challenging their views.

For some of us, the task is to make the invitation nonetheless. No one owns the “big tent” of the church. All who wish may come. Some will stand outside, in their own smaller tents, so that they can condemn the big tent project and many of those who enter in. They focus attention on the boundaries and on who should be excluded. We focus attention on the One whose life and teaching and salvific actions draws us together in the first place. We leave judgement about who is “really” in or out to God.

Ian Carmichael also writes,

The point of my faith needs to be transformation – which needs to be the point of the activity in my ‘small tent’ as well as that of the activity in the ‘big tent’.

This is a great take-home point. It’s what we do in our own home communities that counts in the end. Once in awhile, however, it’s great for us to join together to show the world what a rich community it is that seeks to live in the Way of Jesus.

“One Lord, One Church, One Baptism . . .”
The Christian church appeals back to a single teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, whom our tradition calls the Christ. The unity of una ecclesia, the one church, was counted among its most important features. But, frankly, we’ve never done a very good job at the unity thing. The earliest history of the church, “the Acts of the Apostles,” chronicles the rapid devolution from “they had all things in common” (Acts 2:44) to the acrimonious battle over whether circumcision should be required of all new (male) believers (Acts 15).

No one can take a church history course without being struck by how much of the church’s story is about debates and divisions. Sometimes it seems as though all they did was call each other heretics over ever more obscure matters. At its worst, in the “Great Schism,” popes excommunicated popes. On a bad day, it looks like everyone down river from them was working to imitate their example.

The American Church Today
The church in this country was no exception. We spawned new denominations like salmon spawn eggs during mating season. Then for about a hundred years, it didn’t seem to matter as much. Presbyterians preached predestination and Baptists practiced adult baptism, but (in good American fashion) most people didn’t get too worked up about the differences. Most people identified with a religious community. It might have its doctrines and its quirks. Still, it worked for them.

Over the last few decades, however, “church” stopped working for more and more Americans. The decline hit the Protestant mainline churches first. They’ve been bleeding members and funds for about fifty years. But it now looks like many are finally at that “tipping point” where it becomes impossible even to sustain the old structures. Churches are closing in great numbers. Now the malaise is beginning to spread to evangelical churches as well.

What Happened?
In a word: the old disputes stopped mattering. First, people just wanted religious community, good preaching, and a strong Sunday School program. They didn’t much care whether the historical source was Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or St. Thomas. Then things got worse. The younger generations, the Gen-Xers and Millennials, left their churches when they left home, and the vast majority of them never came back.

What are they saying? That churches have become irrelevant to their lives and concerns. That the old styles of church attendance and worship no longer draw them. That the vicious disputes about doctrines are a turn-off. “If that’s all that your religion stands for, I can do without it.” A staggering 72 percent of Americans between 18 and 29 now call themselves “spiritual but not religious.”

A Movement Outside the Old Institutions
This revolution in attitudes toward institutional religion is upsetting a lot of apple carts. But it is not ending the practice of religion. Across the country people are reading and blogging, meeting in homes and pubs, inventing new forms of religious community. They may write cynically about the hostile debates between evangelicals and liberals, but they also carry within themselves a new religious idealism. They find something revolutionary in the Jesus of the gospels. And they’re bold enough to ask what Christian communities would look like if they really sought to incarnate the Way that this Teacher lived and taught.

We call it “big tent” Christianity. It evokes the image of the revival tent that folks used to set up just outside of town. Here differences were (ideally) set aside while people sought transformation and a new direction in the Spirit. Today, likewise, vast numbers of people are seeking spiritual answers and communities outside of church buildings.

More boldly, “big tent” is also a prophetic challenge to the rancorous debates and condemnations that are the church’s public face today. Christians on the Left and on the Right look more and more like Washington: you are on one side or the other of that great aisle or chasm; everything you say and do plays to your own party. Unity hardly exists, even as a goal. Even Patheos has to offer separate “portals” so that evangelicals and mainliners don’t have to enter through the same door.

A Challenge
Our challenge is simple: if there is any core faith, any shared Way, in Christianity, let’s place it in the middle. Let’s gather on a single stage — from Pat Robertson to Bishop Spong, and everyone in between — to say that unifying love comes first and that the disputes are secondary.

Join us September 8-9 in Raleigh, if you can. But if you can’t, write, blog, and speak about unity over division. Remember that the “big tent” mindset begins at home; it’s not an ideology, it’s how you live. Perhaps what the church needs to hear is what Jesus said to his friend: “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only a few things are necessary . . .” (Lk. 10:41f).

Also posted at patheos.com

– Philip

If you don’t see the video, click here.

Still, I’ve always been worried about Christian leaders who are so sure that their particular projects are the best thing since sliced bread. So I want to ask: what might concern us about Big Tent? What should make you skeptical? What should give you pause?

Some of the criticisms I’ve heard don’t worry me at all. . . .

Read the rest over at Big Tent Christianity.

I just wrote on these themes in a special guest blog for the Washington Post/Newsweek site, “On Faith.” Check it out — and leave a comment if you can!

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/how_i_rediscovered_christianity_through_islam.html

Check out my newest post on Patheos on the topic, “New Visions: Or, Church for People Who Aren’t So Sure about Religion” by clicking on this link:

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/New-Visions-Or-Church-for-People-Who-Arent-So-Sure-about-Religion.html

While you’re there, check out the other contributions by Christian leaders in the forum on “The Future of Mainline Protestantism”:

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Future-of-World-Religions/Mainline-Protestantism.html