recently i've run across a number of Christian authors and teachers who, in discussing the intersection of faith and science, seem at least open to if not supportive of the idea that God somehow used evolution to create the universe and the various species. this concept, theistic evolution, is far from new. in fact, it's been around since the Origin of Species. many of my favorite authors actually hold this view. their argument typically centers around how Genesis 1 (or 1-11 depending on who you ask) is not literal but allegorical, symbolic, poetic, etc. don't worry, i'm not about to attempt to prove how scientifically, mathematically and biologically absurd darwin's evolution theory really is in this blog post (there are plenty of good books to do that). but what recently made me, let's say, concerned is the apparent disconnect in these brilliant Christian writers' minds between evolution and the gospel.here in ukraine the church holidays are celebrated by the old julian calendar, which means that this friday will be good friday. as i've been reflecting on this beautiful tragedy the last few days, i found myself looking at the ramifications of theistic evolution for the gospel. one of the first and classic points of the opponents of theistic evolution is that if God used evolution for creating the world and the species before the fall of man, that makes Him the author of death (since the gears of the evolutionary machine grind the weak to bits and only the "fittest" survive). but what struck me was a much more specific problem.
on good friday all Christians celebrate the death of Jesus Christ, the Godman, who hung on the Cross in our stead, for our sins. we believe that His death there was a substitutionary atonement for our sin before God. but this begs the question: what in the world does the death of Christ have to do with my sin? this is where the necessary Biblical tie comes in. Scripture says that "sin entered the world though one man, and death through sin, so that death passed to all mankind." the connection between sin and death is direct and undeniable according to the Bible. it is because of this connection that Christ's death in our place was tantamount to bearing the penalty of our sin. likewise, it is also upon this connection that the significance of the resurrection of Jesus becomes clear: His triumph over death was a triumph not merely over biological decomposition, but over the power and effect of sin. these points are orthodox, Christian doctrine and nothing new.
but what is striking then is that the same men who accept these truths could turn around and say that God used evolution to create the different species. what this implies is a total disconnect between man's sin and the presence of death in the world. this raises the question: if death has nothing to do with sin, then why did Christ have to die? if darwin was right about the appearance of life, then what is it about this friday that is good?
now, i realize that these Christian authors promulgating theistic evolution are certainly NOT claiming that the death of Christ did nothing to cleanse our sin. on the contrary, i believe they are great men of God who deeply love Jesus. like i said, many of my favorite authors fall into this group. however, i think they probably got caught up in the snowstorm of scientific pseudo-evidence for evolution while not really thinking through the theological implications that such a theory puts to the meaning of the Cross. i'm thankful as we approach good friday that, though sin did enter the world through one man and death through that sin, that,
"as sin reigned in death, even so now grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ." -Rom. 5:21what do you think, are theistic evolution and the gospel compatible? if so, why?
6 comments:
A few thoughts:
1. Obviously guys who hold to a theistic evolution and preach the gospel haven't seen a disconnect between the two practically. And in reality, it doesn't really seem to be diminishing the fruit or reflecting poorly on Christianity in anyway. So, I would say that from a practical and pragmatic stance, the gospel is still working and people are still being saved and the church is growing.
2. Has it ever occurred that maybe they have reasons for believing what they do because they rub shoulders with smart people and understand the the theory of theistic evolution better than we do? From what I understand, it is not at all like Darwinian evolution, which is what you and I think when we hear evolution. It is a hybrid that allows for a longer period of time before vs. 1 and vs. 2 then we would usually allow. This makes me much more gracious.
jake -
1) i agree with you that many Christian teachers do not make a disconnect between the gospel and theistic evolution. (or rather, they don't make a direct connection between the two, and hence there is a disconnect in their handling of both.) however that doesn't mean there isn't one. pragmatically, yes, i don't believe it hinders them for the most part in reaching out with the gospel. but on pragmatism, see the last phrase of my previous post. i'm certainly not saying it affects their salvation or anything of the sort.
2) i'm sure they have "reasons" for holding to theistic evolution (i'm assuming you mean some kind of scientific reasons). sadly, smart people are not always right either. ;) obviously the reasons for incorporating evolution into the Christian creation account are NOT based on the Bible, but rather on external "scientiic evidence" that supposedly would demand its inclusion. but my point was that in this given case, these brilliant men have not thought through the theological implications of such a theory.
now, you mentioned theistic evolution being radically different from standard darwinian evolution. as far as i am aware, there are differing levels of explaining how God "used" evolution among theistic evolutionists (just created material and let it fly, creating life separately and letting that develop, guiding the emergence of species, and even making an exception for man, creating him directly (popular with some muslims), etc.) however, as far as i'm aware, each of these possible theories still incorporates death as the evolutionary mechanism present before the fall. and if that's the case, what's the tie with Jesus' death? (the whole point of my post).
like i said, i greatly admire many Christians who hold this and am deeply blessed by their insights in other areas (lewis, newbigin, chesterton (possibly), keller, etc.), but feel that here they dropped the ball. i think i can still love and respect them without agreeing with them, so i don't think it's a question of "graciousness".
this is on a strictly biblical note.
Another question to ask that ben hit on in the actual blog is, when theistic evolution is a belief, are you taking the passage literally? Was there a HUGE gap between verses 1 & 2? Were the six days of creation literal 24-hour days, or does it imply a longer period?
To answer this, one must look at the consistency of the Bible. What is implied when the Bible speaks of time? Well, every once in a while you get the good ol' week. one week = 7 years. But even that is a stretch if someone said that the bible isn't speaking literally because we all know that the implication of a week is 7 years throughout the bible. But on a more consistent level, the bible speaks of time as a literal thing. Such as the tribulation. literal seven years. the millennial reign is a literal 1,000 years.
Now the old cliche question to ask is if one doesn't take one passage of scripture literally, which passages are to be taken so? Can one pick and choose which parts of the scriptures are true and which ones not?
I certainly agree with Levi (and all the above posts). The origin and solution for the problem of death are the core issue. If death preceded Man - and specifically Man's sin, as all evolutionary and million + year models assert), then having sin forgiven will not fix the problem of death. And if death is not eradicated by God's provision for Man's sin, then you and I remain in death's grip, there can be no resurrection (ours or Christ's), and His death was in vain. This is the fundamental problem with all evolutionary belief. As described, all assertions that the two world views might somehow be compatible miss this central point.
To the related 7-day question, I cannot imagine what more the Holy Spirit could have done to assert that the creation week of Genesis was seven literal days. I don't like the 24hr assertion because I have no idea what the Earth's rate of rotation was at that time. But several explicit, intentional statements are provided to assure the reader that the "literal" day is in view here.
First, the days are numbered. Nowhere else in Scripture are numbered days used when the word "day" is taken generally (e.g. "Day of the Lord").
Second, we are told that each day (except the 7th) consisted of "evening and morning".
Third, the sequence of events does not support the evolutionary "day-age" model anyway as several more advanced life forms precede what evolutionists would consider more "primitive" kinds.
Fourth, and most importantly, God Himself - with His own finger - specifically records in literal stone (the 10 commandments) that He made the "heavens, and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them" in six days and proceeds to equate that time period exactly to the "work week" given to man - six days of work with the seventh hallowed as the sabbath of rest. (Ex 20:8-11).
What more must any author do make the intended meaning clear to us? To attempt to turn these passages into any other meaning is simply dishonest scholarship at best. And as Levi stated, once one begins to take the mantle of judgment upon himself - choosing which parts of the Bible are to be taken at their clear and intended meaning and which are not, then ALL authority and trustworthiness inherent in the text is destroyed. The Bible is relegated simply to a repository of "available" ideas from which each person may build his or her own concept of "truth".
Either believe it or don't, but don't try to edit it.
Very well put Ben, couldn't agree more. There is variation within species, obviously; look at all those weird dogs in the world, etc. and sometimes it is called micro evolution. It has nothing to do with what Darwin postulated on a grander scale. It does seem odd how many Christians do not seem to be able "to connect the dots" and understand the fatal flaws of "theistic evolution" but I believe there are likely several reasons they don't understand. One area that can stump people is assuming that the speed of light is and has always been constant. assuming so drives the idea that it took billions of years for light from certain stars to arrive here at good old Terra firma and if so, then that wars against a six day creation. The answer is that light speed is not, and especially has not, been constant. This has been proven by Barry Setterfield and others more recently. (www.conservapedia.com/Barry_Setterfield )Your logic in presenting the case is flawless. Good job!
thanks for your comments/input, all! good stuff.
levi - on your comment "Now the old cliche question to ask is if one doesn't take one passage of scripture literally, which passages are to be taken so?". i think the typical answer you would get would run along the lines of "well, the Bible says God has wings (often in Psalms and other places), so does that mean God looks like a chicken?" the point being that there are parts of the Bible that are NOT literal in the fullest sense of the word. however, those sections (or statements) belong to the poetic or prophetic genre of Biblical literature and therefore have a slightly different interpretive method. the important part for this theistic evolution discussion is to highlight that Genesis is a book of the historical genre. there are details in the first 3 ch. of genesis that clearly speak to a historical/factual account. today we have "descriptive narrative fiction", but this type of embellishing was unknown in ancient times. any sort of "myth" was usually very straightforward. little details like "the doorknob slowly turned..." or "...and they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day." were never part of ancient fiction/embellishment the way they are today. either it is a reportage or it is a type of fiction from the ancient world not seen before or since.
Post a Comment