Holy week and the Monday through Wednesday of this week have been a uniquely hectic experience in my 79 years, to say the least. So hectic, I did not even follow the New York Yankees in the New York Times, my team for more than 70 years! I knew the issue of Genesis 1-3 and evolution was emotionally charged, but not this charged. Worse yet, I unwittingly involved the RTS community, especially Ric, in the brouhaha. I sincerely apologize to you and especially to Ric for not handling the matter more discretely.
Ric’s acceptance of my resignation has only added to the emotional turmoil; I have received letters from many quarters condemning RTS for his action. In fact, I was asked to be interviewed about my resignation on ABC News with Diane Sawyer! Of course, I refused because I am certain it would have been spun to reflect negatively on RTS and the church.
I am writing to assure you that I find no fault with the RTS administration; in fact, I think they did the right thing. Let me explain.
As noted, I did not have a chance to vet the video. How would I have edited it?
I would have entitled it “why the church should accept creation by the process of evolution,” not “why the church must accept evolution.” Also I would have emphasized in writing that the introductory “If” is a big “if,” because I am not a scientist. Having familiarized myself with reconciliations of religion and science by: Institute of Creation Research (Henry Morris, young earth, no evolution), Reason to Believe (Hugh Ross, old earth, no evolution), Intelligent Design (Philip Johnson, no view on age of earth, but no evolution), BioLogos (intelligent design [lower case] and evolution) and Framework hypothesis (non-committal to any of these views), I consider that of BioLogos the best.
I would have deleted my position as a professor at RTS. This was the real problem. I was speaking as an individual, not as a representative of RTS. It may well be that I am the only one on the faculty holding the view of creation by the process of evolution as understood by mainline science, apart from its normal atheistic philosophy. As it stands, I dragged the whole community in the misunderstandings.
I would have clarified in writing that by evolution I mean theistic evolution, not naturalistic evolution. And I would have defined theistic evolution as I do in my Old Testament Theology
I would have called attention to literature such as Henri Blocher, In the Beginning, and Francis S. Collins, The Language of God that present the case for evolution. (I read Blocher, a brilliant French Reformed Baptist theologian 25 years ago.)
I would have also called attention to my An Old Testament Theology and W.R.L. Moberly, The Theology of Genesis, explaining why I think Genesis can accommodate creation by the process of evolution.
I would have called attention to older classic dogmatic theologies such as Shedd and Strong who also held to theistic evolution. I am told that B.B. Warfield held this view but I have been unable thus far to document that.
I would have suggested to Ric that he call attention to others in the PCA who also held this view.
All “would haves” due to the poor way in which the video was handled by BioLogos and me.
Regarding the future I hope and pray:
this fiasco will not hinder RTS from being open to theistic evolution as I have defined it.
I will not be identified by the idiosyncrasy of being “a theistic evolutionist,” like a “cripple,” “a mute,” etc. This topic is neither my field of expertise nor my hobby-horse, I want to get off it as quickly as I can.
RTS’ reputation will not be tarnished. I will do all I can to that end, such as writing this letter.
our love for one another will increase more and more
Our community is based on the rock-solid foundation that our Triune God’s sovereignty over all things is informed by sublimities that surpass our imagination and our ability to praise them.
Tuesday evening I received the call from the dean of another seminary to teach there. He, the executives of the seminary and I are praying about this with thanksgiving.
In what could be the irony of the century, Bruce Waltke’s recent resignation from RTS over his views on evolution are a harbinger of the end times for creationism.
Bruce Waltke and Darrel Falk, President of the BioLogos foundation, issue a joint statement.
So why is this the end of Creationism? Because when noted OT scholars like Bruce Waltke and Tremper Longman get fired or “disinvited” from a seminary the likes of RTS over views on creation/evolution, it won’t be long before people stop taking the RTS’s of the world seriously.
And with good reason.
Despite the drivel that comes out of Ken Ham and Answers In Genesis, a “literal” interpretation of the Genesis creation account should never be a test of orthodoxy. As long as we continue to treat the Bible like a scientific textbook the entire world will rightly regard us with the same skepticism with which they view various other cults.
None of this is meant to be a statement of my own views on the creation/evolution issue. In fact, I don’t think this issue is about creation and evolution at all. It’s about a particular view of the Bible and a particular view of inerrancy. People aren’t simply scared that God may have indeed used evolution; they are scared that if that is true, then somehow their faith is in on shaky ground because they feel they can’t trust the Bible.
Of course, their fears are only real if the Bible is meant to be a scientific textbook. If that’s what inerrancy means, then I can understand the fear. If, of course, the Bible is something other than a book of bare historical facts–if it is a book of stories (even true stories)–then we really do have nothing to fear but fear itself, not the specter of evil, creation-denying theologians.
It is past time for the Church to stop dividing over petty issues and stop building ridiculous walls of “orthodoxy” that are actually only tangential to the gospel.
These tragic events in the body of Christ are a major catalyst in my appeals for a storied theology. As evangelical Protestants, we must learn to generate dynamic (what I would call “storied” or narrative) metaphors for our theology.
Rather than asking whether someone falls within the borders, we should be asking if we are faithfully walking along a trajectory.
Until we learn to ask whether we are faithfully embodying the story of the crucified and risen Christ, rather than whether we fall within the parameters delineated by our small sliver of Christendom, we will never be able to both take our theological commitments with profound seriousness and steer clear of theological purges that everyone with eyes to see (and by this, I mean with some irony, mostly those with no allegiance to evangelical Christianity) can recognize as devoid of godliness.
In this paper, a study committee deals with the following four views of the days of creation:
The Calendar Day Interpretation
The Day-Age Interpretation
The Framework Interpretation
The Analogical Days Interpretation
They explain each and present the strengths and weaknesses of each, making this a helpful paper for getting a brief overview of those positions.
Perhaps the best part of the paper is the concluding paragraph (I’ve added emphasis to the last sentence, because I think it’s extremely important):
The goal of general revelation along with special revelation is to know God, and thus “enjoy Him forever.” He has given us rational minds that are capable of thinking His thoughts after Him, particularly as concerns His creation. Just as the Holy Spirit illuminates our minds as we read His special revelation, so His providence directs the church of Jesus Christ to know the truth of His general revelation. In the knowing, that truth will indeed set us free. Until we know, Christ’s Church must not be divided over what we do not yet know.
Whenever the creation/evolution issue comes up, one of the guaranteed arguments most literalists (i.e., “6, 24-hour day” creationists) give is this: If we can’t trust Genesis 1-3, then how can we trust anything else the Bible says? This is how Ken Ham’s organization, Answers In Genesis, puts it:
If we trust the Bible for our salvation, we must trust everything it says. Otherwise, we are picking and choosing only what we want to believe.
Well, Ken, you’re partly right. The problem is that we take a very superficial view of what it means to “trust the Bible.” In this strictly literalistic–and even modernistic–view of the Bible, we think of it as a science or history answer book. That is, when David takes a census of the people in 2 Samuel 24, and we read that “there were 800,000 fighting men from Israel and 500,000 men from Judah,” then there definitely could not have been 800,137 men from Israel and 496,218 men from Judah. Goodness…that would mean we can’t trust the Bible!
Similarly, we think that Genesis 1-3 was given to us to be a scientific, historical description of actual events, thereby missing the entire purpose of the story. Now don’t get me wrong; it may well be that a 6, 24-hour day view of creation is true. But even if it’s not, the point of the story remains. Read Waltke’s Old Testament Theology for more info on this.
“But,” some will object, “if there is no literal creation or literal Adam, then how can we believe in a literal Jesus or a literal resurrection?” Well, that’s not a bad question actually. Here’s my answer:
The genre of Genesis 1-3 and the genre of the gospels are not the same. Genesis 1-3 is a story; years of oral tradition written down to show Israel that their God is the true God, the creator God. The gospels are eye-witness accounts of the person and life and work of Jesus of Nazareth. We must take into account genres, audiences, times of writing, etc. God did not give us a history/science textbook. That’s not what the Bible is meant to be. In the words of Richard Pratt (who used to teach OT at RTS in Orlando and now teaches at Knox Seminary…where Waltke’s going), He Gave Us Stories.
Paul presents the person and work of Jesus, particularly his resurrection, as an absolutely necessary historical fact (1 Cor. 15:17). Without that reality, our faith is indeed worthless. He never does that with details of creation.
The way the Bible presents the events of Jesus and the resurrection is very different from the way it presents the events of creation. In 1 Cor. 15:1-8, Paul goes to great lengths to prove by way of witnesses that Jesus actually rose from the dead. He’s not merely telling a story to make a point. According to Paul, Jesus as a metaphor or resurrection as a metaphor simply won’t do.
So in a nutshell, I think it’s very easy to understand what’s important in the mind of the biblical authors. For the author of Genesis 1-3, the important thing is that God is the creator. For the author of 1 Corinthians 15, the important thing is that Jesus actually physically rose from the dead.
I don’t have to treat everything in the Bible the same way. The parts that demand a literal understanding for the sake of the gospel, I have no problem with because the text makes it clear. The parts of the story that have a bigger point to make than timing or historical/scientific accuracy, I have no problem with either because they are tangential to the gospel.
We need to take the Bible seriously. Treating the whole thing, cover to cover, as if it is some science or history textbook is to show disrespect to the record that God gave us.
Bruce Waltke conducted a survey in 2009 about hindrances people have to accepting evolution as a God-ordained and God-guided process of creation. Again, just to be clear, I’m not advocating a particular view of creation or evolution here; I’m just providing this information to further the discussion on the heels of Waltke’s recent resignation from RTS over this issue.
I’ve recently discovered this blog post from an ancient Church blog. I present it to you with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek!
————-
A wolf in sheep’s clothing, that “noted scientist,” Copernicus, has recently defended the belief that the sun is the center of the universe. Worse yet, he claims that so-called “scientific” discoveries have led him to believe that the Earth actually moves around the sun.
Yet he has made a very fatal mistake. He has begun with the follies of science and not with the inerrant Word of God. He is insisting that we submit Scripture to science when it should be the other way around.
Scripture clearly states:
“The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken.” (1 Chron. 16:30)
“[The LORD] established the earth on its foundations; it will never be shaken. (Ps. 104:5)
“The sun rises and the sun sets; panting, it returns to its place where it rises.” (Eccl. 1:5)
There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.
Even John Calvin has refuted this dangerous heresy:
Those who assert that ‘the earth moves and turns’…[are] motivated by ‘a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;’ possessed by the devil, they aimed ‘to pervert the order of nature.
Copernicus and his ilk, while claiming to be Christian, have failed to present their findings as a result of biblical reflection. They see a need to “reconcile” science and the Bible, but so far, it seems that only the Bible is getting changed in this reconciliation.
It should be clear that no consensus of human scientists can be presumed to have a greater knowledge than the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator. Yet, these men who wish to be both Christian and Scientist have placed themselves above the great Creator of the great Earth.
Finally, what do these men think they are doing? If we allow science to twist Scripture in this area, what will science make of the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrection?
When will Copernican “scientists” take their rightful place under the authority and inerrancy of Scripture?
for more info on this.
.
