It is not easy being an evangelical who embraces theistic evolution. On the one hand, as we have seen with the departure of Bruce Waltke from Reformed Theological Seminary that many evangelical institutions are simply not ready discuss how modern science relates to the authority of Scripture in this context. It is easy to bash those institutions. On the other hand, we must embrace the reality that there are very few options for an evangelical who takes the risks that Waltke has taken. Anyone who has ever attempted to argue that the Genesis creation narrative is vague enough for one to accept what is being said there while also realizing the evolution fills in the blanks has been accused of either (1) misreading the Scriptures or (2) not understanding evolution (e.g. this conversation here despite the work of people like Alister McGrath and Alvin Plantiga).
My question is this: Why should evangelicals who affirm the science of evolution be vocal about it? Where would such people go? Why put jobs and income on the line in order to defend something that although true is not essential to one’s field of study? If an evangelical must choose between being quiet about evolution or being quiet about everything else why should an evangelical scholar openly embrace evolution?
I know the easy answer for some would be to cease affiliation with evangelicals but I think that is missing the point. If the person affirms most of the other aspects of evangelicalism (e.g. the authority of Scriptures, the Trinity, the centrality of Jesus Christ) there will not be many more options elsewhere. Would it not be better to be quiet about one thing, quietly affirming it to yourself, than to have to be quiet about a whole bunch of other things?
the archives near Emmaus 
Would it not be better to be quiet about one thing, quietly affirming it to yourself, than to have to be quiet about a whole bunch of other things?
Sadly you may be right.
The irony of course is that mainstream “evangelicals” may not consider a theistic-evolutionist evangelical to be evangelical at all.
The accusation tends to be along these lines:
You can not be evangelical as you believe man over God’s word.
A tragic over simplification.
I want to know who implemented this moot war between evangelicals and science in the first place.
This war has pushed both sides into symbiotic polar extremism.
I’m personally happy with the Bible as the “why” and science as the “how” in general.
I don’t see why in order to be vocal about evolution you have to be quiet about other things you believe.
In my view the most important reason to be vocal about accepting mainstream science as a Christian is because otherwise people who understand science will believe that becoming a Christian involves denying reality. And so letting voices of pseudoscience be the loudest or only Christian voices people hear is absolutely detrimental to the spread of the Gospel!
James,
I said that in the context of employment. It is obvious that evangelical scholars may be risking their jobs in some institutions if they admit to embracing evolution. While I understand what you are saying, and I think this is is what Dr. Waltke was saying when he said we would be perceived as a cult if we denied scientific findings, we must take into the account the reality that being employed is important. If someone must make a decision between having funds to provide for their family or fighting pseudoscience this is not as easy of a decision as some may think.
I think James hits a good point. The biggest reason evangelicals need rapprochement with Biology is that many people have a crisis of faith over evolution. Removing this barrier would be helpful for both discipleship (we don’t need to teach against biology) and evangelism with the technically minded.
Again, this isn’t easy to do with a job on the line, but the evangelical community would do well to move in that direction, and that starts with the teaching in seminary and in churches.
Alex,
I agree. I guess the only real question is how can this be done pragmatically?
Loving questioning and prayer! I think Walton’s model is the most useful theoretically. Some of it will require sacrifice, but hopefully through love and prayer a more robust understanding will emerge throughout evangelicalism. (much harder said than done!)
If Evangelicals ever agree on attempting to reconcile Genesis 1 with evolution, then I’m afraid the whole Context of Scripture discussion will continue to blossom, including viewing and analyzing all parts of the O.T. and N.T. in light of their milieu, exactly as is happening in non-Evangelical biblical studies. And then Evangelicalism will be having far more “difficulties” attempting to answer far more “questions” that keep arising. Definitions of inerrancy will begin to blur altogether. On the other hand, claiming that you believe in the Bible’s “inerrancy” was always a mere shibboleth, not firmly defined, and similar to the other shibboleth question, “Have you accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior?”
THE BIBLE APPEARS TO BE A HUMAN CREATION, PART OF THE HUMAN STREAM OF ANCIENT WRITINGS AND BELIEFS
The O.T. rarely admits where it obtained IT’S general ideas and conceptions that reflect ancient Near Eastern culture around them from cosmology to priesthoods, temple building and sacrifices. The O.T. also mentions the names of books that no longer exist, but presumably from which it’s information was derived, like The Book of the Wars of Yahweh, and, the Book of Jasher, and about 15 other “lost” books. So O.T. writings were part of a stream just as much as today’s bestsellers are.
Then then there’s the N.T. writings:
Jesus and the Apostles employed—and even appealed to the authority of—non-canonical ideas, oral traditions, deuterocanonical, extracanonical writings, and varying textual recensions of their day:
Matthew 2:23 (unknown prophecy),
Matthew 23:2-3 (rabbinic tradition),
Matthew 27:24 (“Story of Susanna” = Daniel 13:46 LXX),
Mark 10:19 (“do not defraud” = Sirach 4:1 LXX),
Luke 11:49 (unknown scripture),
John 7:38 (unknown Scripture),
Acts 7:14 (vs. Exodus 1:5),
Acts 7:16 (cf. Gen. 50:12-14, Joshua 24:32),
Acts 7:20-30 (Jewish traditions about the early life of Moses),
Acts 7:36 (Testament of Moses),
1 Corinthians 2:9 (Apocalypse of Elijah–So identified by Origen, Commentary on Matthew 27.9. This was bitterly disputed by Jerome (Letter 57 [to Pammachius] §9 [NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 6, p. 117]), who claimed the verse was taken from Isaiah 64:4 “according to the Hebrew text.” In fact, however, the Hebrew is only a very rough approximation of Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 2:9, and Jerome may well have been wrong on this point.)
1 Corinthians 10:4 (Jewish tradition),
2 Corinthians 11:14 (Life of Adam and Eve),
Galatians 3:19 (Jewish tradition; cf. also Acts 7:38,
Acts 7:53, and Hebrews 2:2),
Ephesians 5:14 (Apocalypse of Elijah–So identified by Epiphanius, Against Heresies 1.3.42; see also Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians 3.5.15.),
2 Timothy 3:8 (Book of Jannes and Jambres),
Hebrews 1:6 (Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls),
Hebrews 10:5-6 (Septuagint),
Hebrews 11:4–5 (Book of Enoch),
Hebrews 11:35-37 (2 Maccabees 6-7, Martyrdom of Isaiah),
2 Peter 2:4 (Book of Enoch),
James 1:19 (= Sirach 5:13),
James 4:5 (unknown Scripture),
Jude 9 (Assumption of Moses),
Jude 14-15 (Book of Enoch),
Revelation 15:3-4 (the Song of the Lamb–Note also that John 10:22 places Jesus at the Temple during the Feast of Dedication (i.e., Hanukkah), a religious celebration whose only scriptural justification is in the Books of Maccabees. [1 Maccabees 4:36-59; 2 Maccabees 1:18-2:19, 10:1-8])
The apostle Paul–in both his speeches and writings–made extensive use of the late apocryphal work known as The Wisdom of Solomon [not to be confused with the Book of Proverbs, but instead, a late non-canonical apocryphal work attributed to “Solomon,” and which contained some definitely “weird” ideas.]:
Acts 17:27 (compare with Wisdom 13:6),
Acts 17:30 (compare with Wisdom 11:23),
Romans 1:19-23 (compare with Wisdom 13:1-5),
Romans 9:19-23 (compare with Wisdom 12:12-18 and 15:7)
Romans 13:10 (compare with Wisdom 6:18),
1 Corinthians 6:2 (compare with Wisdom 3:8),
Ephesians 6:11-17 (compare with Wisdom 5:17-20),
2 Timothy 4:8 (compare with Wisdom 5:16.)
See also the chapter, “The Cosmology of the Bible” in the new book, The Christian Delusion.
I have considered this question myself. If your teaching touches on the issue, it is nearly impossible to avoid. What are you going to do when you come to Genesis 1-11 (as an OT prof like Waltke would), and students raise the question of evolution? You have to address it. And if we are concerned about truth and integrity, then we would have to address it honestly (even if a bit circumspectly).
With that said, I would like to back up a bit. Why assume that evolution is true? I have spent a number of years engaging this issue, and I have found the empirical evidence supporting Darwinism to be extremely weak. It is buttressed more by philosophical/methodological naturalism than empirical findings. So one front is the scientific: does the evidence really support the theory, or is it being driven by philosophical concerns?
Second is the exegetical issues. Apart from the age of the creation question, there are other difficulties involved with trying to reconcile the evolutionary account of history with the Biblical account. There are also theological concerns. For example, a number of theistic evolutionists want to say that God’s designing activity in the world in not empirically detectable, but that flies in the face of Romans 1 and Psalm 19. So it’s not a simple issue of Evangelicals having to face the music about the truth of evolution, and squaring it with Scripture.
Jason,
This is one of those situations where I have to parrott Waltke in saying, “I am not a scientist”. I do intend on doing some reading this summer since it would make sense to know what this is all about. I have had plenty of people tell me to read Richard Dawkins. Who do you recommend?
Re recommendations for your summer reading on evolution, instead of Richard Dawkins, I would recommend the following:
“Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution” (or the shorter version: “I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution”), both by Denis O. Lamoureux
“Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleomntology, and Biblical Interpretation” by Stephen J. Godfrey & Christopher R. Smith
“Perspectives on an Evolving Creation,” edited by Keith B. Miller
“Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?” by Denis Alexander
“Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution” by Kenneth R. Miller
“Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe” by S. Conway Morris
“The Deep Structure of Biology: Is Convergence Sufficiently Ubiquitous to Give a Directional Signal?,” edited by Simon Conway Morris
“What Evolution Is” by Ernst Mayr
“Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body” by Neil Shubin
“Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A. Coyne
“Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution” by Karl W. Giberson
“Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life” by John F. Haught
“The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” by Francis S. Collins
“Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution” by Deborah and Loren Haarsma
“Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology” by Darrel R. Falk
After you’re done with these, you can find additional recommendations on my Listmania! list on Amazon. 😉 Have fun!
Paul,
Wow, thanks for the list. I may not have time to get to all of these. Do you have a top three recommendations?
Brian,
For fun reading on evolution, I would recommend “The Deep Structure of Biology: Is Convergence Sufficiently Ubiquitous to Give a Directional Signal?,” edited by Simon Conway Morris and “Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body” by Neil Shubin, both of which are relatively short, very interesting, and easy to read.
For a one-stop introduction to the entire field of fitting evolution into your Christian faith, I would recommend “Perspectives on an Evolving Creation,” edited by Keith B. Miller.
Whenever you’re ready to go the whole way, then try Denis Lamoureux’s “Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution.”
There are also a lot of good essays on the American Scientific Affiliation’s web site: http://www.asa3.org/ See especially “Learn More” in the lower left corner of their home page.
Then, coming full circle, there’s always the ‘Scholarly Essays’ and ‘Featured Readings’ on the BioLogos Foundation web site that became the center of the storm over Bruce Waltke’s video.
Paul,
Awesome, thanks!