I recently received a review copy of "Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job" by Dr. Hugh Ross. In it, Ross attempts to make the case that the book of Job, in addition to being the most ancient book of the Hebrew Bible, also has more to say about the scientific aspects of creation than any other book, including Genesis.
This is not a standard position, Ross admits, and his is likely the first book-length treatment of the topic (that I am aware of). After reading "Hidden Treasures...", I asked Dr. Ross if he would do an interview for Methodist Examiner readers which could give them more background on him and his work. He graciously agreed.
James-Michael: Dr. Ross, I'm familiar with your ministry, Reasons To Believe, and have used a number of your resources over the years when teaching seminars on the Bible and Science. Could you share with those who may not be familiar with you what led you to found RTB?
Hugh Ross: Many pointers converged, but here’s one that stands out. While serving on the ministry staff at a church near Caltech, I gave a brief series of talks on the latest and best scientific evidence for the God of the Bible and for His involvement in making and shaping the universe. That series prompted my fellow pastors and other leaders to ask how often these faith-affirming discoveries are being made. When I replied, “At least once a month,” they said, “We want to help you get this word out.”
So with support from our congregation, as well as family and friends, my wife and I launched Reasons To Believe (RTB) in 1986, and by God’s grace we’re still here, still growing, and still presenting new reasons for our Christian faith. Even with a team of staff and volunteer scholars, we cannot keep up with the accelerating pace of discoveries showing God’s handwriting on the record of nature.
JM: What scientists have influenced you the most in your life?
HR: Three researchers played a significant role, each at different point in my life: James Clark Maxwell was the first. I greatly admired the depth and breadth of his work. No matter what sub-discipline of physics I studied during my childhood and youth, his contributions dominated. He impressed upon me the importance of stepping back from the details to gain the big picture and, with that big picture, to constructively integrate a consistent, comprehensive explanation. Thanks in part to Maxwell, constructive integration is a priority among RTB scholars. Nearly a decade after I gave my life to Christ I discovered that Maxwell was also a believer, an elder in the Scottish Presbyterian Church, and a passionate proponent of the historic “two-books” (Scripture-and-nature) doctrine.
Dave Rogstad came into my life when I began postdoctoral research in radio astronomy at Caltech. That was eight years after I signed my name in the back of a Gideon Bible, signifying my commitment to Jesus Christ. For eight years I had tried and failed to find a Bible-believing church or to meet Christians who took their faith seriously, but that changed when I arrived in Pasadena. At Caltech I met several believers, and none more devoted to spiritual growth than my new colleague, Dave. After hearing my story he understood my misgivings about going to church. So he patiently encouraged me to participate in home Bible studies. There I experienced the meaning and benefits of fellowship with other believers and also discovered the joys of teaching. Soon I began attending Dave’s church, and a year later that congregation invited me to join their pastoral staff—a dramatic alteration of my career trajectory.
I met Allan Sandage in my role as a pastor. During my years at Caltech I had heard him lecture multiple times, and I admired him greatly. He was the most prolific astronomer I knew of, publishing as many as 50 papers in the peer-reviewed literature within a single year. A former student of Edwin Hubble, he was one of the most distinguished scientists of the day. Imagine my surprise when I saw his name on a “visitor card” one Sunday after services. When I followed up with a personal visit, I learned that he had just become a believer after secretly studying the Bible for the past 35 years. We had a wonderful conversation that day and more to follow. He kindly arranged for my use of the Carnegie Observatories library, which at the time held one of the best astronomy journal collections around. That’s where I did much of the research for my first book, The Fingerprint of God. This help, along with his endorsement, clearly contributed to the success of that book.
JM: Who have been some your biggest theological influences? Particularly regarding interpreting creation doctrinal issues?
HR: I’d like to mention four who stand out: Harold Lindsell, Thomas Torrance, Gleason Archer, and Walter Kaiser. All four expressed a deep appreciation for Christian apologetics but understood that apologetics must always serve evangelism. Dr. Lindsell helped reinforce my views on biblical inerrancy, and he opened many doors for me.
Dr. Torrance invited me to participate in a dialogue between physicists and theologians at UC Berkeley. He described me as a scientist with a passion for evangelizing theologians and told me about his outreach to prominent atheistic physicists. From him I learned the importance of reaching out to scholars outside my discipline. Though we didn’t always see eye to eye theologically, I much valued the thoroughness of his research, perhaps best demonstrated in his editing of a multi-volume set, Theology and Science at the Frontiers of Knowledge. In that set, a team of scientists and theologians document the Christian and biblical roots of the scientific method.
I first met Drs. Archer and Kaiser in 1990, when I was invited to speak as part of the Kenneth S. Kantzer Lecture Series in Revealed Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. The topic was Genesis 1, and I shared the platform with Dr. Bruce Waltke. During that week I enjoyed daily time with Archer, Kaiser, Kantzer, and Waltke, debating over lunch various aspects of the Genesis text. Dr. Archer, a preeminent linguist, told me he had begun an intensive study of Genesis 1 back in 1955. Apart from science and based on exegetical considerations alone, he had arrived at the same interpretation I presented that day. He and Dr. Kaiser together strengthened my conviction that a willingness to do the necessary research always leads to recognition of the agreement between the book of nature and the book of Scripture.
The depth and breadth of each man’s studies—along with godly humility—allowed them to take a firm stand on biblical inerrancy. As powerful as Dr. Archer’s intellect was and Dr. Kaiser’s still is, what I’ve found most striking about each man is the radiance of his love. Each can be described as manifesting an irresistible warmth. Perhaps what I’ve admired most is their response to those who disagreed with them. Their gentleness and respect make them exceptional models for me of 1 Peter 3:15-16.
JM: Scripture speaks to the unfathomable breadth of creation and how this points to the unimaginable greatness of God the Creator. Since Hubble expanded our concept of the size of the universe exponentially, how would you go about getting people to understand or attempt to understand the greatness of God? What are some illustrations or metaphors that you find most helpful? And what do you find the least helpful?
HR: I try to give lay people visual tools for understanding both the size and mass of the observable universe. Remember that because of the continual expansion of the universe and because it takes time for light to reach us, the universe we see through our telescopes is smaller than the universe that exists today. Now, thanks to the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, we know that the observable universe contains approximately fifty billion trillion stars. Who can picture a number like that? One analogy is to say that’s more than the number of grains of sand on all the world’s beaches. Now try to grasp the fact that these fifty billion trillion stars make up just one percent of the total mass of the universe! Yet, if the mass of the universe were changed ever so slightly, the cosmos would be devoid of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other elements that make physical life possible. (The mass of the universe determines which elements will exist and in what abundances.)
For even one life-supportable planet to exist, the entire universe must be no bigger and no smaller than it is. The magnitude of the fine-tuning involved is virtually impossible to visualize. So it’s frustrating to find a suitable analogy, one that an audience can actually relate to. My wife keeps suggesting ideas, but they fall so far short of the real numbers, I hesitate to use them. But I do like to remind people that God so loved humanity that He invested in fifty billion trillion stars and a lot more stuff for nearly 14 billion years just so that we can have a pleasant place to live. On that basis alone we know He must hold a very high purpose for each one of us.
I find it helpful to point out, as well, that as vast as the universe is, we humans are living at the one location—and in the one time window—from which we get to observe the entire history of the universe, including the cosmic creation event. The fact that we’re here at both the unique location and the unique time simply cannot be coincidental. God wants us to see the fullness of his glory, power, and righteousness revealed in the universe (Psalm 97:6). Our special observing capabilities provide yet one more testimony of our great worth in God’s eyes.
Least helpful illustrations would be those based on inaccurate or misunderstood science. I often wish Christian personalities would consult with professional astronomers before going on television and radio to expound on spiritual truths revealed in the heavens. Examples would be the New Jerusalem descending toward Earth from the Orion nebula or the constellations as a presentation of the Gospel.
JM: There seems to be somewhat of a rift developing among evangelicals who reject young-earth creationism between the intelligent design community and the theistic evolution community. Groups like the Discovery Institute and BIOLOGOS are reluctant to come together to discuss issues of science and faith it seems. How do you see the current Christian scientific landscape shaping up and how does Reasons To Believe fit into things?
HR: You are right about the rift. BIOLOGOS, like much of the scientific community, is disturbed by the attempts of many within the intelligent design movement (of which the Discovery Institute is the dominant player) to impact the teaching of science through a “bottom-up” approach. This strategy calls for persuading the general public that the evolutionary paradigm is seriously flawed and then using mass influence to impact science students, faculty and researchers, and ultimately scientists at the highest academic levels to give equal time to alternate views. Here’s the problem: for centuries the scientific revolution has been sustained through a top-down approach. It pushes forward from the frontiers of research and has shown itself to be self-correcting over time. For example, the steady-state universe gave way to the big bang, Pluto was demoted from planet status, and junk DNA is now known to be functional. Asking the scientific community to abandon a useful research tool without providing a workable replacement is asking too much. I might add that while some individuals at the highest level of research may be hindered by pride, those at lower levels may be hindered by their lack of research experience or scientific understanding.
Most members of the scientific community, including BIOLOGOS scholars, react to the vagueness of Intelligent Design (ID). The lack of specific and comprehensive model for the origin and history of the universe, Earth, life, and humanity, and the unwillingness to identify the source of apparent design makes researchers uneasy, at best, and angry, at worst. The refusal to take a position on such issues as the age of the Earth, big bang cosmology, and descent with modification arouses suspicions of a hidden agenda. These suspicions are heightened by the movement’s apparent efforts (e.g., careful editing of their resources) to avoid offending young-earth creationists. Just as significantly, the science community reacts to what seems a strictly negative goal, specifically to knock down evolution.
Meanwhile ID advocates are disturbed by what appears a universal and unquestioning commitment within BIOLOGOS to the tenets of a naturalistic evolutionary paradigm. While BIOLOGOS scholars (who refer to themselves not as theistic evolutionists but as evolutionary creationists) claim to believe that the record of life on Earth is best explained by a combination of natural and supernatural processes, ID proponents note that the BIOLOGOS team is unwilling to commit to any specific supernatural interventions in the pre-human physical realm other than the big bang creation event. Additional points of dispute include whether humans descended from one pair of humans or a large group of humans, how the first humans came to exist, and how sin originated and passed on to all humans.
Our desire at Reasons To Believe is to maintain respectful dialogue with both the Discovery Institute and BIOLOGOS scholars. Despite differences in beliefs and goals, we also have found some common ground with both organizations and see some ways we can minister together. We’ve met scholars within both BIOLOGOS and the Discovery Institute who seem to share our commitment to use scientific evidences as tools to bring people to faith in Christ.
For several years now my RTB colleagues and I have proposed a way to settle differences among Christians on science-faith and creation-evolution issues. We’ve called for development of interpretive models, as specific and comprehensive as the data allow, as a way to test competing positions. Rather than engaging in hostile debates, we invite different groups to present verifiable/falsifiable, predictive models. The ones closest to the truth will be those that most consistently and accurately predict the direction and perhaps even some particulars of future scientific and theological discovery. They will also be recognized by their ability to provide the most thorough and comprehensive explanation for the entire sweep of nature’s record. In two of my books, Creation As Science and More Than a Theory I attempt to compare the success, thus far, of a few competing models as currently constructed and suggested ways to continue testing. My desire is only that the best model(s) advance.
JM: Your new book is called Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job. What inspired you, a scientist, to take on one of the most poetic and literary books in the Bible?
HR: Through years of studying Scripture, I can to see in Job more content on creation and the natural realm than in any of the other 65 books. Although countless commentaries have been written on the book of Job, I found none that gave thorough attention to its teaching on these subjects.
Special impetus came from some breakthrough research studies on higher animals. Given that Job says more than all other Bible writers combined about this tier of Earth’s life, I saw an opportunity to integrate in some depth what the book of Scripture and the book of nature say on this fascinating subject. Furthermore, Job commands us to look to the birds and mammals for instruction. Today most people greatly underestimate the importance of these creatures in launching and sustaining global civilization and in answering fundamental questions about humanity in relationship to God.
What also impressed me about Job was how frequently it foreshadowed scientific discoveries and offered insights on how to manage Earth’s resources for the benefit of all life. Thus, the book of Job yields many new reasons to believe in Christ as Creator and Lord. I am convinced, too, that it offers wise counsel for dealing with current environmental crises.
The poetic nature of Job makes perfect sense given that it most likely dates back several centuries before the writing of the Pentateuch. Job’s story predates the advent of Hebrew as a written language. So its composition as an epic poem would facilitate memorization. Its message could be preserved with accuracy independent of a written record. It’s worth noting, too, that Hebrew poetry is well suited for didactic teaching. Even after Hebrew became a written language many of the Old Testament’s instructive texts were composed as poetry. Isaiah’s teaching on the Trinity serve as an example.
JM: On the spectrum between “totally historically literal in every detail” and “completely fictional hymnic poetry with no historical referents” where would you classify the book of Job?
HR: Given the structure of Hebrew poetry, I see no contradiction between “hymnic poetry” and “totally historically literal in every detail.” It would be an overstatement to say that the book of Job is “completely hymnic poetry.” Job 1-2, Job 32:1-5, and Job 42 :7-17 are recorded as prose not poetry. I would also be cautious in using the word “literal” because some people use it in a rigid, wooden way, and language possesses some wonderful fluidity. To be clear, I believe that the entire book of Job is God’s true and trustworthy Word, totally accurate in every in every subject it addresses, including history, science, and geography.
JM: Often scientific discussions become politicized before careful and honest dialogue has a chance to occur. When it comes to such politically charged issues as climate change/global warming and the teaching of evolution/creation/intelligent design in public schools, what do you believe is the most helpful and responsible stance for Christians to take? What are the least helpful?
HR: When it comes to environmental issues like climate change/global warming, I like to point out that God has commanded us (Genesis 1:28-30) to manage the planet’s resources for the benefit of all, and He has guided us to solutions that are both ethical and economically feasible. Thus, we should always look for solutions that combine the two. If we consistently pursue such solutions, we can render the politics irrelevant. However, we must always be aware of the sinful tendencies of human nature.
As for what can be taught in public schools, many Christians have mistakenly presumed that the U. S. courts (McLean v. Arkansas, Aguillard v. Treen, and Edwards v. Aguilard) have ruled against the teaching of creation in our nation’s classrooms. The court in each case made note that the freedom clauses in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments already allow for religious ideas and concepts to be taught in public education—provided such ideas and concepts possess at least some demonstrable secular merit and academic integrity. The creation proponents lost those court cases by their association with a particular brand of creationism that lacked scientific merit and integrity. So the door remains open, on constitutional grounds, for teaching that does possess demonstrable scientific credibility. Thus, for example, big bang cosmology can be taught in spite of its obvious Christian implications.
The most helpful and responsible stance for Christians to take in the public arena is to present evidence, calmly and dispassionately, for the truth of the Bible and for the factual basis on which the Christian faith stands and then to invite open dialogue. I find forums much more productive than debates, even more so when three (or more) views are presented. One important component of such interactions is an extended, unscreened Q and A session. The impact of such a session can be dramatic.
JM: How would you counsel people who struggle to reconcile their scientific worldview with their Christian faith?
HR: I would encourage them to keep studying, keep asking questions, and keep open. God’s nature is to reward a diligent search. He wants to be known. A core doctrine of the Christian faith is that everything God reveals to us is true and, therefore, consistent. Any seeming conflict between science and theology must be due to either a misinterpretation of nature’s record, a misinterpretation of the Bible’s words, or both.
The Bible invites us to integrate all that God reveals in the Bible’s 66 books and in the realm of nature, across all science disciplines. Anomalies or apparent discrepancies should be welcomed as opportunities to dig deeper in the quest to learn more of what God so willingly reveals. And we cannot expect to find absolute proof of anything. Our knowledge will always be limited. However, sufficient proof certainly is available.
Thanks to Dr. Ross for taking the time to do this interview. I've read many of his works and I very much appreciate his ministry, and his commitment to the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture as well as his commitment to embracing rather than rejecting the findings of modern science.
I find myself unable to embrace all of his conclusions regarding the book of Job, but for a Concordist approach to the Bible and Science, his is one of the more reasonable voices out there, and a good alternative to various "Young Earth" Creationist approaches which are popular among evangelicals.
JM
[To find out more about "Concordist", "Semi-Concordist" and "Non-Concordist" approaches to interpreting Scripture in light of scientific findings, see James-Michael Smith's seminar "The Bible & Science: Friends or Foes??" which is available in DVD format for $25 or streaming video for $2 per session.]
Comments