Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church: Introduction

This is the first post is a 10-part guest-post series on Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Church.

For those of us that are Evangelicals, the Church is not a cultural or ethnic club, an institution to provide moral guidance, or even a religious organization. Although each of these aspects can be true of the Church (for better or worse), this is not what defines it. The Church is the corporate body of Christ, the collection of all sinners saved by grace and mandated to further the kingdom of God on earth. It manifests itself worldwide and more intimately at the local level. We look to the Church to feed us spiritually, even as we as individuals provide support to others in the body. We celebrate together, grieve together, share similar fears and dreams, and help each other when in need. We share a common purpose and a common spiritual ancestory.

In short, the Church is our family.

And problems within this family affect us at that deepest level. When the family rejects us, it can cause loneliness and despair. When the family is acting in a way that is unhealthy, we want to intervene to change that direction. And when members of the family are struggling in some way, we are eager to help. These problems are only too familiar for Evolutionary Creationists (EC) as we struggle to find our place in the evangelical family.

An Evolutionary Creationist Returns Home to the Evangelical Community

In a poignant article called Surprised by Joy, biologist Darrel Falk recounts how he returned to the Christian faith, but felt he could not return to the evangelical church.

So I got back on the road which leads to God—I began once more the life of faith. I never expected though that I could be a part of an evangelical community again; the differences between the facts of biology and the views of evangelical Christians seemed too great. So I did my best to live the life of an evangelical Christian without being in an evangelical fellowship. I had a deep and meaningful personal relationship with God, but corporate evangelicalism, I was certain, would have to be a thing of the past.

But God has created us to be in relationships, relationships with both himself and with each other. Falk quickly realized that he was missing out on something essential; being part of the body is vital for both spiritual health and fulfillment and he longed to be part of the evangelical community. He was able to finally return to that community, and that return was surprising as it was joyous.

Eight Perspectives on the Relationship between Evolutionary Creationists and the Church

Over the next two months, 8 guest contributors will discuss various aspects of the relationship between evangelical ECs and their spiritual family, the evangelical church. Starting next Monday, evolutionary biologist Douglas Hayworth will discuss his own challenge in finding a church home within the evangelical community. Very few evangelical churches welcome the active participation of ECs, and Doug will provide some guidance on how an EC can approach this search for a welcoming community. I believe his points will be helpful to other ECs, but I am also hoping other ECs can provide Doug with some feedback of their own as his own journey has reached somewhat of a crisis point.

The next two contributors will discuss how they have responded to anti-evolutionism within the evangelical church. TWU biology chair Dennis Venema will talk about his experiences addressing unhealthy views of science and God’s creation in the local church. He will use the particular example of how he provided an alternative view to the “Focus on the Family Truth Project” classes in both his own church community and in a neighbouring church. ASA webmaster Terry Gray will then consider the response at the denominational level. In the 1990’s, Gray was an elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and was put on trial by his denominational body for his views on evolution. Today, Gray is part of an effort within his current denomination (the Christian Reformed Church – CRC) to take a positive stand on the compatibility between evolutionary biology and the Christian faith. Gray will discuss both of these experiences in his article.

The first half of the series will conclude with an article by palaeoanthropologist and evolutionary biologist Jim Kidder. Jim encountered Christ while in Japan, and then anti-evolutionism within the American evangelical church. He will provide some personal perspectives on his journey and relationship with the church.

The second half of the series will focus on how we as EC’s can help our brothers and sisters in Christ develop a healthy view of the science / faith relationship. Engineer, scientist, and bible teacher Phil Wala’s article will discuss how evangelical scientists can help their fellow evangelicals in this area. Critical thinking has never been a strong-point within our community (to put it mildly!), but this skill (required by all good scientists) will be very helpful for evangelicals trying to come to grips with a constantly changing modern world.

Two pastors will then provide their perspectives on the science / faith dialogue. Baptist minister Murray Hogg will discuss the challenge of tackling this difficult and controversial topic. If not handled with wisdom, care and humility, EC’s “eagerness to help” may be counterproductive. Using the Apostle Paul’s approach to Christian maturity and the “weaker brother”, Murray will discuss how we can be helpful without being hurtful. Keith Suckling, an Anglican priest, will then discuss his experiences leading a Test of Faith course in his church. "Test of Faith" has just released several new curricula and teaching materials, and it will be interesting to hear some feedback from one of the early users of this material. (Note: The material is not yet available in North America but should be available soon).

The series will conclude with a post by church elder and chemical engineer Allan Harvey. Allan taught a science and faith course in his Presbyterian church several years ago. His lesson on evolution contains the best simplified overview of “definitions of evolution” for Christians that I have seen. Allan will provide a post on “10 lessons learned on teaching a science / faith course in the church”.

Promoting Health in the Family

Many of the series published on this blog (with the exception of the student series) have been somewhat academic in nature – academic in the sense that one can interact with the posts without necessarily making a huge personal investment. This one may be somewhat different. All of the posts will share very personal perspectives on the science / faith dialogue, and challenge each of us in various personal ways. How could it be any other way? The topic of evolution and the Church is about our relationship with our spiritual family, our desire to help our family grow in its relationship with its Creator, and our longing to remove the stumbling-block of antievolutionism so that faith in Christ is considered both viable and desirable.

We want to be part of the family; we want our family to be healthy; we want to see our family grow.

Enjoy the series.

Evangelical Pastors and the Creation, ID, Evolution Minefield

Being a pastor must be one of the more unenviable vocations. It is both highly stressful and spiritually demanding. Although responsible for the spiritual well-being of the members in their churches, many pastors have nowhere to turn for their own spiritual needs (or questions). This combination of factors is probably partly responsible for the high levels of burn-out and depression among the pastorate.

Pastors and the Science-Faith Dialogue
Dealing with the volatile science-faith dialogue is an area of added difficulty for the modern pastor. Ours is a rapidly changing world, and technological advances due to new scientific discoveries are responsible for most of these changes. However, even though science is such an important factor in our modern culture, few pastors seem to have adequate scientific training. And since most voices within evangelicalism (with the exception of our scientists) are so strongly anti-evolution or pro-IDM, it is no wonder that most pastors default to this anti-evolution position. In fact, given the personal and professional risks inherent in publicly defending the compatibility of science and the Christian faith, one could easily forgive those pastors who do understand this compatibility for not proclaiming it from the pulpit.

Tim Keller’s Pastoral Approach to the Dialogue on Evolution
Tim Keller should command all of our respect. I’m usually suspicious of “mega-church movements” (my odd mix of conservative anabaptist & Plymouth Brethren upbringing is probably responsible for this bias), but Keller’s approach at Redeemer in the heart of Manhattan (including his unflinching stance against consumerism) is both effective and laudable. In the past, Keller has been unafraid to enter the science-faith fray with a qualified support for theistic evolution (see our past discussion: "Would your church allow you to publicly support Evolution?"). More recently, he co-sponsored the first Biologos workshop that brought together evangelical scientists, theologians, and pastors to explore the relationship between science and faith. Many good papers were presented at this forum.

Keller’s contribution to the workshop included the paper "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople". As any good pastor, Keller’s priority in the discussion is its effect on the Christian laity (If only all pastors were more concerned with their parishioners than with their “ministry”!). What questions about evolution are at the forefront for ordinary Christians? What are the theological implications of evolution? How will these questions, answers, and implications affect the spiritual health of the individual and the church? These are the questions Keller sets out to address.

Keller’s Advice to other Pastors
But Keller also provides important advice to other pastors as well. In his paper he states that:

… if I as a pastor want to help both believers and inquirers to relate science and faith coherently, I must read the works of scientists, exegetes, philosophers, and theologians and then interpret them for my people. Someone might counter that this is too great a burden to put on pastors, that instead they should simply refer their laypeople to the works of scholars. But if pastors are not ‘up to the job’ of distilling and understanding the writings of scholars in various disciplines, how will our laypeople do it?

Now this type of response is indicative of a man that doesn’t shrink from his responsibilities. No parade of excuses (even entirely justified excuses). Keller knows the needs of “ordinary people learning to follow Jesus in our time” (part my own church’s motto) and also understands that pastors are probably in the best position to fulfill these needs.

This is one of the things that parishioners want from their pastors. We are to be a bridge between the world of scholarship and the world of the street and the pew. I’m aware of what a burden this is. I don’t know that there has ever been a culture in which the job of the pastor has been more challenging. Nevertheless, I believe this is our calling.

I encourage everyone with an interest in the science / faith dialogue (especially pastors!) to read Keller’s paper. Although I’m not sure I agree with Keller’s response to the 3rd important question he articulates (the historicity of Adam and Eve), I really like the summarized answer he gives to the question:

Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in an historical fall and a literal Adam and Eve. There are many unanswered questions around this issue and so Christians who believe God used evolution must be open to one another’s views.

This is what we need from our pastors: The courage and confidence to address difficult topics but tempered with Christian humility (we don’t have all the answers and must be prepared to admit we are sometimes wrong), and the desire to encourage Christian unity in the face of theological differences.

A Harbinger of Change?
I have often thought that my own pastor’s response to the evolution controversy was the best one could hope to hear in an evangelical church. In his message on creation a couple years ago he briefly noted that: “It doesn’t matter if God created through evolution or Intelligent Design”. Ok, not a great way to frame the choice, but at least he proclaimed a healthy view of creation that was not just about origins.

However, maybe I am being too pessimistic about the chances for positive discussions on science & faith in our churches. Maybe it is not just our scientists and theologians that are making progress here; if Keller is any indication, maybe this positive change is happening at the ground level of Evangelicalism as well.

Questions
I’d be interested in what others have to say on this. Maybe the shrill voices insisting that evolution & faith cannot be reconciled are just the loud ones and not necessarily a significant majority. Maybe having someone of Keller’s stature publicly defending the compatibility of evolution and faith will provide the impetus for other pastors to take a similar stand (or at least investigate the topic further). Is there reason to be optimistic? Are there other similar examples of agents of change? Maybe the most important question of all: How can we help our pastors start, continue, or publicize this discussion?

Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept Evolution?

About a year and half ago I commented that evangelical theologians seem hesitant to engage in the science / faith dialogue. Chiding them as “timid”, I asked:

If we [evangelicals] cannot speak to the issues of the day, how can we expect others to be interested in the gospel? If we aren’t answering the questions that are being asked, why are we surprised when people (including our youth) look elsewhere for answers?

Evangelical theologians: This is not so much a complaint as a request for help.

A few months later, I indicated that I might have been too harsh, and that evangelical theologians were indeed re-evaluating their reluctance to consider the implications of an evolving creation. In a post on the relationship between the leading evangelical scientific organization (the ASA) and the leading evangelical theological organization (the ETS), I shared how Bruce Waltke, a former president of the ETS, had come to accept evolution. I ended this essay by chiding myself and some of my fellow ECs with the remark that:

Maybe we just need to be patient and let [evangelical theologians] think this [science / faith topic] through for awhile.

By “awhile”, I was thinking years, if not decades.

Well, maybe evangelical theologians are much, much further along in this process than many of us had ever imagined. In a survey that Waltke conducted for Biologos, he found that almost half (46%) of evangelical theologians that responded to his survey accept that God created through the process of evolution. (HT: David Opderbeck)

You read that right: 46% of evangelical theologians that participated in Waltke’s survey, accept that God created through the process of evolution.

I think there are some legitimate questions that can be asked about the methodological rigour of this survey. But even if the 46% number is somewhat inflated (and I suspect this is probably the case), evangelical theologians are not even close to being predominantly opposed to evolution.

Now if only some of this theological thinking would translate into more theological discussion and theological action ….

Patience, Steve, patience.

Building a Community of Evolutionary Creationists

Many of us that accept the scientific consensus for evolution find it difficult to find like-minded individuals interested in exploring the theological implications of an evolving creation. Many others (maybe most Evangelical ECs) would risk membership in their Christian community (Church, mission, etc.) if their views were known. (See for example our past discussion on the question: Would your church allow you to publicly support evolution).

In a new post on changing beliefs, Cliff Martin comments on his frustration in finding this type of community:

So I am facing a conundrum. I am motivated to prepare my friends for what I consider an inevitable paradigm shift, and to develop a community of believers who will study the Bible with me from an evolutionary perspective. But I am having no success. And I risk alienating my own friends if I continue.

The irony is that in seeking to bring together a community that values integrity in both science and faith, we risk being ostracized from both the community of faith and the community of science.

Collins on Creating a New Community
Francis Collins is trying to rectify this problem. In a recent post on “Creating a Community to Explore the Harmony of Science and Faith”, Collins stated that he would like to:

[encourage] a new and vibrant community dedicated to finding the truth in both science and faith. The shrill voices at the poles of the science and faith discussion that claim the scientific and spiritual worldviews are incompatible have their own organized communities. But what about the vast majority that seeks a third way?

From my own limited experience / knowledge, I think Collins belief that a “vast majority” seek this 3rd way is probably overly optimistic. But he is absolutely right that the situation is much better now than it was even a decade ago. He comments that:

There are encouraging signs that people who trust both God and science are beginning to create such a community.

All of us should be thankful to Collins, Falk, Giberson, and the rest of the Biologos team for starting to provide resources for building this type of community. I’m also happy to see Collins is looking for input from other EC/TEs. He states:

These are just initial efforts to help catalyze a community devoted to seeking harmony in science and faith. We'd love to hear any ideas that could help in building this community.

A Suggestion
Well, since he asked, here is my suggestion. I think we should publish an “Evangelical Statement on Evolution” that succinctly states that an Evangelical expression of the Christian faith, and the scientific theory of evolution are compatible. This could be modeled after the Clergy Letter Project, but crafted in a way to ensure it has an explicitly Evangelical character. The statement sponsoring signatories should include evangelical leaders from 1) a broad range of denominations 2) several different academic disciplines (at least scientists, biblical scholars and theologians - yes, we definitely need those timid theologians) and 3) a cross section of Evangelical organizations (eg. missions, umbrella groups like the EFC and the NAE). The statement should also have some mechanism for allowing the rest of us to sign on as well.

And, come to think of it, that November meeting that Tim Keller, Collins and other leading scientists, biblical scholars, and theologians are having would be a great forum to launch this initiative.

Your Feedback
Ok, that’s my idea. What do you think? Do you think the time is right for an Evangelical Statement on Evolution? Would it be a positive step in the discussion, or would it serve only to raise more divisiveness? Do you have any other ideas you’d like to suggest to the Biologos team?

A Re-evaluation by Evangelical Theologians?: The ETS, the ASA, and Hints of Change

There has been some discussion on the gap between evangelical theologians and evangelical scientists on the topic of biological evolution. This gap is illustrated by the current relationship between the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) and the closest thing to an evangelical scientific society, the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA). As Ted Davis noted, it has been a long time since there was significant interaction between the ASA and the ETS.

ASA and ETS Background
Both the ASA and the ETS were formed in the mid-20th century, the ASA in 1941 and the ETS in 1949. Both groups share a commitment to the evangelical faith and sound academic scholarship. The ETS encourages biblical and theological research while maintaining a commitment to biblical inerrancy. The ASA describes itself as a “fellowship that shares a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science”. Although many members of the ASA affirm the inerrancy of scripture, the group’s statement of faith simply states, “We accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness and authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct”.

For many years (I think starting in the late 1950s), the ETS and the ASA held joint annual meetings. However, at some point this was discontinued. I am not sure if ASA fellow Richard Bube’s petition to the ETS to “either to define inerrant or substitute some other term such as authoritative in its statement” was a factor in the fallout, or if this was simply a symptom of larger already-existing differences. (Ten points to anyone who can provide further background). In the ensuing years it seems even those who wished to renew ETS / ASA cooperation did not consider joint meetings to be a realistic target. In 1992 ASA member John McIntyre, commenting on the possibility of resuming joint meetings, said that “I do not believe that such a joint meeting would lead to the cooperation that we desire; we would spend all of our time arguing about evolution”.

I have indicated (on several occasions) my disappointment that evangelical theologians seem oblivious to the evidence for biological evolution. However, maybe this disappointment (and sense of impatience) is not warranted. Although I have no reason to believe that the ETS and the ASA are planning any formal dialogue in the near future, two potentially significant events give me reason for hope. The first is the participation of two theologians at the CIS conference later this year; the second is the open acceptance of theistic evolution by a former president of the ETS.

Evangelical Theologians at Christians in Science (CIS) Conference
The CIS is the UK sister organization to the ASA. Its 2008 annual conference is entitled “Celebrating Darwin? Creation, Evolution, and Theological Challenges”. It is interesting to note that two impeccably evangelical theologians will be presenting at this conference (HT: David Opderbeck). The conference program includes lectures from both Henri Blocher (Wheaton), the author of the very important In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, and Richard Hess (Denver Seminary). I’m not sure if either of them would describe themselves as EC or TE, but the very fact they are presenting at this conference indicates that an important & neglected dialogue may be occurring. (Note: While in the UK, Hess will also be leading a session at the Faraday institute on God and Origins: Interpreting Genesis).

Bruce Waltke’s Support for Theistic Evolution
Bruce Waltke is a former president of the ETS. He has taught at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College, WTS, and RTS. Last year Waltke released his massive An Old Testament Theology. In a chapter entitled “The Gift of the Cosmos” (the whole chapter is excellent) Waltke candidly states his acceptance of theistic evolution, noting that Francis Collins “The Language of God” was very helpful to him (HT: to Glen Davis in this comment). Here is Waltke’s summary of his own position (pages 202 and 203 – note, the capitalized ADAM below refers to humanity):

The best harmonious synthesis of the special revelation of the Bible, of the general revelation of human nature that distinguishes between right and wrong and consciously or unconsciously craves God, and of science is the theory of theistic evolution.

By “theistic evolution” I mean that the God of Israel, to bring glory to himself,

1. created all the things that are out of nothing and sustains them

2. incredibly, against the laws probability, finely tuned the essential properties of the universe to produce ADAM, who is capable of reflecting upon their origins

3. within his providence allowed the process of natural selection and of cataclysmic interventions – such as the meteor that extinguished the dinosaurs, enabling mammals to dominate the earth – to produce awe-inspiring creatures, especially ADAM

4. by direct creation made ADAM a spiritual being, an image of divine beings, for fellowship with himself by faith

5. allowed ADAM to freely choose to follow their primitive animal nature and to usurp the rule of God instead of living by faith in God, losing fellowship with their physical and spiritual Creator

6. and in his mercy chose from fallen ADAM the Israel of God, whom he regenerated by the Holy Spirit, in connection with their faith in Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, for fellowship with himself.

Now, I could quibble with a few points in the description above, and I’d never personally use the term “theory of theistic evolution”, but on the whole this is pretty good. That someone of Waltke’s pedigree can change his mind in this matter is heartening. Maybe we should provide some of those ten books to more evangelical theologians. Maybe we just need to be patient and let them think this through for awhile.

Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics: Historical Perspective and Future Directions

This is a guest-post by historian of Science Ted Davis, and is the twelfth installment in our “Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics” series. Ted is the vice-president of the American Scientific Affiliation, and is consulting editor for both Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith and Science and Christian Belief.

For at least a century, evangelicals have typically rejected both evolution and higher biblical criticism. Sometimes there are good reasons: the claims of some biblical scholars are so outrageous, and the claims of some scientists so anti-religious, that a strongly negative response is entirely appropriate. Too often, however, the evangelical encounter with modern science conforms to what historian Mark Noll has called “the scandal of the evangelical mind”—namely, “that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals: Significant Differences

John Stackhouse has given an excellent definition of an evangelical. I especially like the breadth of his criteria for being an evangelical and his emphasis on ecumenical cooperation. Evangelicals and fundamentalists share many core beliefs, but differ from one another mainly in attitude, especially their overall attitude toward modernity, including science. George Marsden, the leading historian of fundamentalism, defines it as “militant anti-modernism,” and both parts of that definition are crucial. Where fundamentalists have historically emphasized separation from the world and its “worldliness,” evangelicals have typically been much more willing to engage the world on its own terms, and thus their understanding of the world is negotiated to a much greater extent than that of fundamentalists.

Evangelical Tension with Science

Nevertheless, evangelicals exhibit considerable tension and ambivalence when it comes to science, especially human evolution. On the one hand, evangelicals enthusiastically embrace the findings of science, when it comes to most applications in medicine and engineering. They also accept the experimental sciences, such as physics, chemistry, physiology, or thermodynamics. They have no problems with gravitation, the periodic table, the circulation of the blood, or the law of entropy. Here, their attitude is highly empirical: if it can be shown from repeatable experiments and observations, it’s true and presents no challenge whatsoever to religious belief.

On the other hand, evangelicals are quite hesitant to accept some conclusions of the so-called historical sciences, such as geology, cosmology, and evolutionary biology. Fundamentalists reject the very legitimacy of those sciences, and have created their own alternative explanation, “creation science,” which comports with their particular views of biblical authority and hermeneutics. Evangelicals are more ambivalent. Many evangelicals accept the big bang – indeed, quite a few evangelical leaders believe that aspects of the big bang theory strongly support belief in the divine creation of the universe. Many evangelicals also accept modern geology, with a 4.65 billion-year-old earth and the long history of living things before humans arrived on the planet. But evolution - understood here to mean the common descent of humans and other organisms - presents very serious problems for many, perhaps most, evangelicals.

Evangelicals and Evolution: Looking for Alternatives

This motivates many evangelicals to look for alternative views. Some embrace creation science. Others prefer one of the many varieties of “old earth creationism” or “progressive creationism.” Probably a large number prefer the confident, sometimes even cocky tone of the “intelligent design” movement. Officially (at least), ID takes no stance on the age of the earth and universe, though most ID adherents have no quarrel with mainstream science on those issues. Technically ID has no stance on human evolution, either: as long as “design” can be shown within science itself, evolution is in theory acceptable to ID advocates. In practice, however, many ID leaders have said strongly negative things about both “evolution” (or “Darwinism”) and “theistic evolution,” leading most observers to conclude that ID is just another form of antievolutionism, albeit the most sophisticated form that has yet appeared. Many ID advocates view the hypothetical “just-so stories” of evolutionary biologists with scorn: they want to see convincing evidence that what might have happened actually did happen, before they embrace a fully evolutionary account of life’s history.

Reconciling Evolution with Scripture

Most evangelicals do not see any viable way to combine human evolution with the following beliefs, which they base on their interpretation of the Bible:

• the uniqueness of humans, who alone bear the “image of God”
  
• the fall of Adam and Eve, the original parents of all humans, from a sinless state, by their own free choices to disobey God
  
• the responsibility of each person for their own actions and beliefs, within a universe that is not fully deterministic
  
• the redemption of individual persons by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Evangelicals cannot and must not be separated from their crucial beliefs about human dignity, freedom, responsibility, sin, and redemption. The 64-dollar question is: can they maintain those beliefs without simultaneously affirming the necessity of an historical, separately created first human pair?

Evangelical Theologians and Biblical Scholars: It is your move

Reconciling the theory of evolution with these core beliefs depends to a great extent on evangelical academics, particularly theologians and biblical scholars. Can they be persuaded that the scientific evidence for evolution is sufficiently strong to warrant a re-examination of the traditional view? Can a credible gospel and credible science be harmonized?

There exists an enormous gap between popular conceptions of science – conclusions, methods, and attitudes – and those of scientists themselves. This gap is not unique to science among practitioners of specialized knowledge, and it is not unique to evangelicals among the lay public. But it is real and very significant, and it affects theologians and biblical scholars no less than anyone else. Those who try to bridge this gap are mostly scientists (in their role as educators at colleges and universities and insofar as they write books for lay readers) and science journalists. Both of those professional communities tend to be skeptical if not hostile toward Christian beliefs, and this can exacerbate an already difficult state of affairs. If ways can be found to popularize good science, while showing appropriate sensitivity to the concerns of evangelicals, it would be a very good thing.

Signs of Hope

Certainly there are reasons to hope. The conversation about science and religion is considerably broader now than it was at the time of the Scopes trial in 1925. Back then, many Protestants faced a very grim choice. On the one hand, they could follow politician William Jennings Bryan and the fundamentalists, rejecting modern science in the name of biblical authority and orthodox beliefs. On the other hand, they could follow theologian Shailer Mathews and the modernists, rejecting biblical authority and orthodox beliefs in the name of modern science. There was no one out there like John Polkinghorne, a leading contemporary scientist who accepts evolution but also upholds the Nicene Creed (a pertinent example is his book, The Faith of a Physicist).

And Polkinghorne has plenty of company – Francis Collins, Joan Centrella, Owen Gingerich, Simon Conway Morris, William Phillips, and Ian Hutchinson (to name just a few) are all excellent scientists, and they all believe in the divinity of Jesus, the bodily resurrection, and the actual divine creation of the universe. But they are all scientists, not theologians (except for Polkinghorne, who is both). In Galileo’s day, it was the scientists who eventually convinced the theologians and biblical scholars to accept Copernicus’ theory of the earth’s motion around the sun, but it took a long time. And the process was difficult and often painful. I suspect we are in for more of the same.

Promoting a Positive Relationship Between Faith and Science in Evangelical Churches

It is not often you hear a positive message on the relationship between science and faith in an Evangelical church , or at least a positive message on evolutionary science and faith. If evolution is mentioned at all, it is usually cast in a very negative light. Is there hope that this could change in the near future?

The Clergy Letter Project

Three weeks from now hundreds of Christian pastors will be preaching about evolution during their Sunday morning sermon. But rather than delivering a warning against the evils of evolution, these ministers will be promoting peaceful coexistence between the scientific theory and the Christian faith. The coordinated messages on evolution will be delivered on Feb. 10, 2008 to coincide with the 3rd annual Evolution Sunday event (renamed to Evolution Weekend for 2008). It is a event spearheaded by The Clergy letter project, a group of more than 11,000 clergy that have signed a formal letter calling for an end to the conflict between religion and science.

At first blush this project may be encouraging for those of us who wish to promote a peaceful coexistence between science and the Christian faith. After all, removing the evolution “stumbling block” should allow many seekers to reconsider the gospel, and stop many Christians from doubting or abandoning their faith. However, I suspect this initiative will be unhelpful in promoting peace between science and a specifically Evangelical expression of the Christian faith since there is very little Evangelical representation in the group and the character of statement itself is not one that will attract many Evangelicals.

a) Very Little Evangelical Presence

From my quick perusal of the thousands of clergy that have signed the letter, I suspect that very, very few of them are Evangelicals. In fact, denominations lying outside of orthodox Christianity (eg. Unitarian Universalists) are grossly overrepresented in the group while thoroughly Evangelical denominations seem entirely absent. Now denominations with historic roots that include at least a minority of Evangelicals (eg. Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, and Baptist) are well represented, but I doubt that many of the congregations or pastors on the list come from the Evangelical end of the spectrum in their respective denominations. This may be a broad coalition of Christian clergy that promotes a positive view of evolution, but it clearly does not represent broader Evangelicalism.

b) Not an Evangelical Statement

Parts of the statement are indeed quite good. Saying that “the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist” is a great place to start. And I would more-or-less agree with the assertion that “To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God”. I realize that shared statements like these must be broad in order to enable broad participation, but a statement that does not include a single mention of Christ is clearly not written with the input of Evangelicals or with an Evangelical audience in mind. A careful reading of the statement shows more of an influence from NOMA originator Stephen Jay Gould than from prominent Evangelical Faith / Science commentators like Allister McGrath or Francis Collins. (For a more positive Evangelical assessment of The Clergy Letter Project, see Vance’s post at The Submerging Influence).

Building an Evangelical Statement

Personally I would welcome a specifically Evangelical statement regarding a positive relationship between evolutionary science and faith. A statement like this could have the same positive effect in the Evangelical community that The Evangelical Climate Initiative has had in the climate change discussion. The ASA’s statement on Creation includes a section entitled “The Theistic Evolution (Continuous Creation, Evolutionary Creation) View”, and this probably comes closest to fitting the bill right now. However, I don't believe this statement will have a dramatic effect since the positive view of evolution is included in a document that also includes anti-evolutionary statements (there is a YEC view as well), there is very little awareness of this document within the Evangelical community, and it seems unlikely that the statement will be widely promoted. Darrel Falk in his lecture Bridging the Worlds of Faith and Biology (a very interesting lecture that I recommend) hints that he and other Evangelicals may be working on an initiative like this in the near future, but I'm not aware of any details. I will definitely be watching this closely.

I am interested in hearing what others think about creating an Evangelical statement on evolution and faith. Do you think there is enough momentum in the Evangelical community for this type of proposal to garner a significant level of support? Or would it be dismissed as an initiative from the radical Evangelical fringe? What do you think is the best approach for this type of initiative? Is it something that should originate in Evangelical academia? In Evangelical denominational structures? Should Evangelical umbrella organizations like the NAE and the EFC be consulted and/or involved? Or would this work better if it originated outside of these types of organizations? After all, one positive aspect of the Evangelical movement is that grass roots initiatives can be very, very successful. Maybe the most important question of all is whether this type of initiative is constructive? Ie. will the benefits outweigh the obvious risks?

A Positive Evangelical Sermon on the Faith / Science relationship

For those that believe that a proposal like this is doomed to fail or fizzle, and for those whose experience in the Evangelical church is very painful when it comes to the topic of evolution, I invite you to listen to this sermon entitled “How can I reconcile Science and Faith” by Tom VanAntwerp of Grace Chapel in Lexington, MA (HT: David Opderbeck). It is an incredibly good sermon that provides an honest overview of the historical context, the modern conflict, and a way for Evangelicals to approach issues of science and faith. For those of us that have studied the science / faith dialogue closely, there is probably nothing new in the sermon. However, I doubt that many of us have heard anything this astute, wise, and pastorally helpful on the topic of science coming from the pulpit of an Evangelical church, nor could many of us do any better. I sure couldn’t.

If this sermon is any indication, there is hope that we Evangelicals can and will overcome our self-defeating battle against evolution. At least I am hopeful.

What is an Evangelical? Am I one? Why do I choose to wear the Label?

My objective for this site is to promote and foster a specifically evangelical dialogue on the subject of evolution. Others are certainly invited to participate, but the invitation is primarily directed to evangelicals. What are the implications of biological evolution for our specifically evangelical theology? What are the implications for our faith? Are there areas of evolutionary science that have been tainted with philosophical assumptions that contradict core evangelical beliefs? How do we distinguish between the physical evidence of God’s creation and the metaphysical assumptions so often tied to the explanations of the evidence? These are some of the questions I believe evangelicals should be discussing.

Several weeks ago I provided a brief overview of the meaning of evolution. Thus I have provided a partial definition of how I believe this dialogue should be framed. However, to understand what a specifically evangelical dialogue would look like, I should also define what evangelical means.

What is the definition of an evangelical? What is the difference between an evangelical Christian and Christians who are not evangelicals? Where and how do we draw the line? Maybe more pertinent to the discussion in this particular dialogue, what reason do I have for considering myself within the evangelical fold? And why do I even want to hold onto the label? As I’ve confessed previously, being an evangelical can be downright embarrassing given the perception of the movement in western society, perceptions often completely supported by the attitudes and actions of very broad swaths of evangelicalism that are still tainted by fundamentalism. I’ll deal with my own personal reasons for self-identifying as an evangelical later. For the definition, I’ll turn to another of my favourite authors, John Stackhouse.

Stackhouse is an evangelical historian, philosopher, and theologian. His is also the senior advisor for the Centre for Research on Canadian Evangelicalism (CRCE), an initiative of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC). In this capacity he has provided an updated definition of evangelicalism. Given how notoriously difficult it is to define evangelicalism, I applaud Stackhouse for his succinct, and I believe successful, definition. His definition shares some similarities to my own overview of evangelical distinctives where I proposed that acceptance of biological evolution does not contradict an evangelical expression of the Christian faith. This similarity is not surprising since we both utilize David Bebbington’s framework proposed in Evangelicalism in Modern Britain. However, I believe Stackhouse provides a more practical and comprehensive definition. He also includes some astute observations on how the definition should be used.

Stackhouse’s definition of evangelical includes the following six criteria:

1. Orthodox and Orthoprax: Evangelicals subscribe to the main tenets—doctrinal, ethical, and liturgical—of the churches to which they belong.
2. Crucicentric: Evangelicals are Christocentric in their piety and preaching, and emphasize particularly the necessity of Christ’s salvific work on the Cross.
3. Biblicist: Evangelicals affirm the Bible as God’s Word written, true in what it says and functioning as their supreme written guide for life.
4. Conversionist: Evangelicals believe that everyone must trust Jesus as Saviour and follow him as Lord; and everyone must co-operate with God in a life of growing spiritual maturity.
5. Missional: Evangelicals actively co-operate with God in his mission of redeeming the world, and particularly in the proclamation of the gospel.
6. Transdenominational: Evangelicals gladly partner with other Christians who hold these concerns, regardless of denominational stripe, in work to advance the Kingdom of God.

The middle four criteria are slightly modified versions of Bebbington’s. The 6th criterion is adopted from George Marsden (Fundamentalism and American Culture and Evangelicalism and Modern America), while the 1st is added by Stackhouse himself, a criterion almost certainly assumed by both Bebbington and Marsden.

There are a couple of significant points to notice in this definition. First, each of the criteria is relatively broad. Doctrinal hair-splitting, so often the bane of evangelical unity, is completely absent. So, for example, in #3 there is no mention of inerrancy or even infallibility. Many evangelicals do indeed affirm the inerrancy of scripture, and most affirm its infallibility. However, since there is significant disagreement on what those terms mean, I agree that it is helpful to avoid these adjectives in the definition itself. (Interestingly the EFC’s own Statement of Faith does include infallibility, although not inerrancy. The American equivalent to the EFC, the NAE, does the same in its statement of faith).

Second, Stackhouse insists that none of these criteria are unique to evangelicals, but that evangelicals uniquely affirm all six criteria as a cohesive set.

“[This] set of criteria functions properly only as a set. There is nothing peculiarly evangelical about any of them singly, of course. It is only this set that helps scholars, pollsters, leaders and interested others “pick out” evangelicals from Christians in general or observant Christians in general or observant Protestants in general, and so on. Thus it must be employed as a set, without compromise, as in the common polling practice of counting as evangelicals those who score “highly” on some scale derived from such criteria. No, evangelicals do not compromise on any of these values: They don’t think it’s okay to fudge on the atonement or the Bible, or to neglect churchgoing, or avoid evangelism."

So these six broad in scope but mandatory criteria define evangelicalism. But why do I personally identify with the movement? Why, if I do not agree with many of the political, intellectual, and cultural beliefs associated with evangelicalism, do I wish to label myself an evangelical?

I strongly identify with evangelicals, and affirm that I am an evangelical, precisely because the six criteria defined above closely match my own view. I agree with the doctrinal consensus affirmed by the apostles, the church fathers, the reformers, and the leaders of the Great Awakenings that birthed modern evangelicalism. The cross of the incarnate, suffering God is central to redemption. God has revealed himself through scripture, and we must take seriously its claim for authority. Being a follower of Christ includes more than intellectual assent; it includes radical trust in God’s guidance. We are all called to proclaim and participate in the Kingdom of God. And we must not let denominational differences hinder this proclamation or participation. I believe all six criteria are important.

No I am not a hard-line political right-winger, anti-science, anti-intellectual, against all forms of biblical criticism, or a participant in the culture wars. But I fail to see how any of these latter characteristics, so often descriptive of evangelicals, conform to the six criteria in Stackhouse’s definition of evangelical. In many ways, I believe these characteristics conflict with our self-identifying criteria of being orthodox, crucicentric, biblical, conversionist, missional, and transdenomination Christians.

In short, I want to be called evangelical because, despite the disrepute brought on the movement by many evangelicals, its core characteristics are true and right. I do not wish to be referred to as post-evangelical because of this disrepute, just as I do not wish to be called post-Christian because Christians acting in a un-Christ like manner have sullied Christ’s name. Just as we should not let anti-evolutionary creationists prevent us from proclaiming creation, neither should we let fundamentalist evangelicals prevent us from proclaiming the evangel.

So maybe the next time I introduce myself, I’ll say, “Hi, I’m Steve, and I’m an evangelical creationist”.

Then again, maybe not.

Lutherans and Evolution

Back in May I commented that, among Evangelicals, those in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) are less likely to find evolution challenging to their faith. I speculated that this was because they had few ties with the early 20th century fundamentalist / modernist controversy. Seems that this is also true of the Lutheran church. Lars Hammar, a Lutheran pastor in Arizona, writes a very nice article on evolution here. He states:

Historically, Lutherans never got into the whole evolution-creationism debate. We avoided it, just didn’t enter into it at all. As a result, some of our members have more conservative views, some more liberal, but little in the way of an official church stance. Anecdotally, I would say that most Evangelical Lutherans (what we are at Our Saviour’s) believe in evolution (if you can say that evolution is something you believe in, and not something you accept as fact or deny). Definitely most Lutheran pastors and church leaders accept evolution.

I suspect part of the reason for not entering the debate is that during the crucial moment (early 20th century) the Lutheran church probably still looked to Europe (Germany, Scandinavia) for much of its theological leadership. Whereas denominations like the Baptists and Presbyterians had been completely assimilated to American culture by the early 20th century, the Lutherans and the CRC (Dutch) were not.

As a side note, George Murphy, one of my favorite science-theology-interaction writers, is also a Lutheran pastor. You can check out his website at http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/.

Evangelicalism and Evolution: Why the Discussion Matters

This is the last of four posts that provide an overview of the history & character of Evangelicalism, its historic response to evolution, and why the discussion of evolution matters today.

Is it important for Evangelicals to soften their anti-science stance and discuss the topic of evolution? Does it really matter? In one way, it’s not really that important at all. Understanding and agreeing to biological evolution is no more important than understanding and agreeing to other scientific theories that are supported by significant evidence. One can get along quite nicely without understanding gravity, stellar evolution, or quantum mechanics. (Everyone prior to Newton did). One can be a humble follower of Christ, participate in his kingdom work, and attract others to the Way without agreeing with any of the these scientific theories. So why do I even think that discussing biological evolution is important let alone relevant? Why not just ignore this controversial topic, and concentrate on primary concerns like spreading the gospel, making disciples, serving the poor, and creation care?

From my perspective, it is not actually the theory of biological evolution that is significant, but Evangelicalism’s misguided response to it. Not understanding how God created life is one thing; insisting that God could not have achieved his purpose through biological evolution is quite another. Adding anti-evolution beliefs and an anti-science attitude to the gospel is no addition at all, but a corruption at least on par with the early Jerusalem church’s insistence on continuing the observance of Jewish law. I believe there are four specific dangers to this antagonism to evolution: First, it discourages Evangelicals from participating in science and celebrating the wonders of God’s creation. Second, it is instrumental in causing many to abandon faith in Christ. Third, it promotes and “end-justifies-the-means” attitude to science and encourages Christians to compromise their integrity. Fourth, it prevents many from coming to faith in Christ.

Problem #1: Anti-evolutionism discourages Evangelicals from studying science

As I mentioned in my welcome note, I avoided certain academic disciplines when I was in school (particularly biology) because I dreaded what they would do to my faith. That evolution leads to a loss of faith is an adage repeated constantly YEC organizations, and this repetition enhances the intimidation factor of the evolution bogeyman. From anecdotical evidence, it appears that the fear generated by this claim is a key reason why many other Evangelicals avoid academic disciplines that deal with human origins. (For example, see this article lamenting the fact that there are so few Christian anthropologists). This propagates a vicious cycle. A dearth of Christians in these scientific disciplines make it all the more likely that non-Christian philosophical interpretations of the evidence will abound.

Problem #2: Anti-evolutionism causes many to abandon faith in Christ

YEC organizations often claim that the theory of evolution is causing youth to abandon faith in Christ. I believe that this is an incorrect assessment and that the responsibility lies not with the scientific theory, but with YEC organizations like Answers in Genesis, The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) which shackle the gospel with an outdated theory of science. Far from “defending the bible from the very first verse” as AIG claims, the YEC version of the gospel causes many to reject the biblical message because it is poisoned with YEC nonsense. The insistence that abandoning a YEC interpretation of Genesis is equivalent to abandoning the authority of the bible, and ultimately the authority of God, is a horrible travesty. Unfortunately, many Christians have swallowed this YEC version of the gospel, and their faith is shaken when they encounter the evidence for real science.

The testimony of Glenn Morton is instructive. He became a follower of Christ during his college years through the witness of a Christian campus ministry and was told his new faith mandated that he believe in YEC science. To Morton Christ’s life transforming power was authentic, and if YEC beliefs were part of the package, it too must be authentic. As a geo-physicist, he became active in ICR and published many articles that attempted to reconcile the scientific evidence with a YEC interpretation of the bible. Over the years however, he found it increasing difficult to ignore the evidence for a very old earth. Eventually, he was forced to abandon the YEC scientific view. Because his faith was so tightly coupled with the YEC scientific view, he nearly abandoned his faith as well.

Problem #3: “Creation Science” compromises our integrity as Christians

The scientific evidence points overwhelmingly towards an old earth. Even YEC scientist Kurt Wise admits this. He states that:

"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young from scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant”.

Unfortunately, from my reading, most creationist scientists do not have this kind of integrity and honesty when dealing with the scientific evidence. In an effort to bolster the faith of their followers, they will insist that the scientific data actually points to a young earth. When someone identifies the flaw in a specific scientific interpretation, they tend to move on to new claims and new evidence. Rarely, it seems to me, will YEC promoters admit to their followers that their former claims were invalid, even when the claims have been irrefutably contradicted. (For a growing list of answers to creationist claims, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

For Creation Scientists, science is not about examining the evidence to reach a conclusion. Rather, their science is about choosing data that can be interpreted to meet a pre-existing conclusion. This is Morton’s view as well. As he grappled with the geological evidence, and tried to discuss this evidence with his fellow creationists at ICR, he found out that:
“… my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. In general they were not interested in discussing the difficulties and they did not want to read any material that contradicted their cherished position”

God is the creator of all things, the creator of nature, the creator of science. God is not afraid of the data and we should not be either. A dishonest portrayal of the evidence neither honours nor defends God.

Problem #4: Anti-evolutionism prevents many from even examining the claims of Christ

Not only does marrying Creation Science with the gospel cause some to abandon their faith, it can also prevent spiritual seekers from even considering the claims of Christ. For those who are scientifically literate in particular, the patently ridiculous claims of “creation science” are a definite obstacle to acceptance of the gospel.

Preston Jones, a history professor at a Christian university, had an interesting email discussion with Greg Graffin, an atheist and member of the punk rock band “Bad Religion”. In a Christianity Today article, he comments:

In those months of dialogue I also saw the devastation wrought by the passion for pseudo-scientific theories on natural history among some Christians. Many of my students believe that six-day creationism is an essential Christian belief—that if the first chapters of Genesis can't be taken literally, then the whole Bible is a fraud. What tragic nonsense!

Before Greg and I corresponded, I didn't care. "You wanna believe the earth was created six thousand years ago? Whatever." But Greg helped me see that this kind of gaping ignorance promotes the perception that theologically conservative Christians are the enemies of learning.

It is this (often true) assumption that evangelicals are “enemies of learning” that can conceal the truth of the gospel. I like 11th century theologian Anselm’s motto “faith seeking understanding”, meaning an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God. We seek to understand because we have faith, not in order to have faith. When we abandon an attempt to understand, we diminish faith, not enhance it. And unfortunately, our “faith seeking understanding” turns to “faith without understanding”. This can be easily distorted into “faith because there is no understanding” by those opposed to the Christian gospel and finally to “faith because of ignorance” by militant atheists like Richard Dawkins.

Two Myths about the relationship between Christianity and Science

This is the third of four posts that provide an overview of the history & character of Evangelicalism, its historic response to evolution, and why the discussion of evolution matters today.

When I started this blog about a month ago, I stated that the current relationship between evolution and evangelicalism can best be characterized as warfare. While this particular statement is true, I would like to address two popular myths that are extrapolations on the statement above. The first is that the relationship between modern science and religion can be described as one of continuous conflict. The second is that Evangelicals have, from the beginning, unanimously opposed both the scientific views of an old earth and of biological evolution.

Militant atheists claim that the warfare between Evangelicals and evolution is just one new battle theater in the ongoing war between religion and science that started during the Enlightenment. This is a myth in the sense that it is a story, created in the late 19th century, to support an agenda, in this instance an anti-religious (primarily anti-Christian) agenda. It is also a myth in the sense that the historical evidence does not support the claim. Modern science was born, grew, and flourished in a thoroughly Christian Western Europe. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that the Christian worldview was a pre-requisite to the discovery and success of modern science, or that the relationship has always been harmonious, the worldviews have much more in common than the myth above would have us believe.

It is true that modern western Christians often regard claims of new scientific discoveries with skepticism. However, this is also true of the broader scientific community. That is the way science functions. “Show me the evidence” is that mantra that must be followed, particularly when the discovery radically shifts our understanding of how the world works. Wacky theories are constantly being postulated, theories that rarely jive with common sense, and are often simply nonsense. Occasionally, significant supporting evidence for these “wacky theories” is found and we start referring to them as “brilliant theories” instead. Being skeptical of the wacky, and supportive of the brilliant, (even when they describe the same theory) is simply good science.

It is also true that modern Christians have been troubled, not only by the fact that many scientific discoveries contradict “common sense”, but also how some seem, at least initially, to contradict the bible. Common sense confirmed that the earth was immovable, and the bible supported it (1Chr 16:30, Psalm 93:1). It was not only immovable, but also flat (Psalm 104). The Sun moved around this stable earth, and not visa-versa (19:4-6 and Eccl 1:5). The sky was a solid dome (Gen 1:6-8) and the physical location of heaven was just beyond the sky for that is where Jesus ascended. In each case, it was discovered through science that these ideas were incorrect. However, Christians generally assimilated the new scientific theories relatively quickly without abandoning a trust in scripture. Although the old “biblical” concepts of nature still have some recent adherents (check out notes on flat earth believers and geocentricists), the vast majority of Christians (including those who are strict literalists) now reject these ideas.

Christians that support a YEC stance will sometimes promote a second myth, that Evangelicals have historically been unanimous in their condemnation of both evolution and an old earth. The objective is to portray Evangelicals that support either scientific theory as abandoning core Evangelical beliefs. The historical facts also contradict this claim.

As the science of geology developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, estimates for the age of the earth increased rapidly from about 75,000 years old to many millions of years old. Although Evangelicals at first grappled with the implications of a very old earth, they rapidly came to accept the fact that the earth was more than 6000 years old, the age of the earth calculated from a “literal” reading of Genesis. Even Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield, the two conservative Princeton Theologians who were primarily responsible for formulating the modern doctrine of biblical inerrancy, accepted the fact of an old earth. The two most popular methods that Evangelicals used to reconcile Genesis 1 with an old earth were the day-age theory (each day was not a literal 24 hour day but rather a very long period of time) and the gap theory (the insertion of a very long gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2). As the dawn of the Fundamentalist revolution approached in the early 20th century, very few Evangelical leaders still clung to the idea of a young earth.

Evangelical acceptance of the theory of evolution was much less prevalent. Charles Darwin published “The Origin of the Species” in 1859 and both positive and negative reactions were almost instantaneous. Those wishing to damage the Christian faith saw it as an opportunity to prove that the bible was composed of myths and fables; conservative Christians saw it as a threat to God’s role in creation. As such, even from the beginning, there were those on both sides of the debate that positioned evolution as inherently atheistic. By the early 20th century most Evangelicals may have accepted the fact of an old earth, but the majority of them were dead set against the theory of biological evolution.

What is interesting to note however, is that this opposition within the Evangelical community was not nearly unanimous. Some Evangelical leaders were able to reconcile the theory of evolution with a high view of scripture. The noted botanist Asa Gray, an Evangelical from Harvard University, was the most influential initial supporter of Darwin’s theory in America. Benjamin Warfield mentioned above, as well as other Evangelical theologians and clergy, also supported the theory of evolution. Even several of the authors of the Fundamentals, the series of books from which the name “Fundamentalist” derives, either supported a form of evolution or were willing to accept it “if it could be proved on scientific grounds”. Before fundamentalism, the acceptance of evolution certainly did not mean banishment from the Evangelical club.

The obvious question is this: Why today, with the availability of significantly more scientific evidence to support an old earth, have many Evangelicals rejected this claim? Why are they abandoning the theological positions of past Evangelicals that came to accept the evidence for an old earth, just as earlier Christians had accepted the evidence for a round earth and a heliocentric view of the solar system? The rise of “Creation Science” and “Scientific Creationism” is a story in itself, so it will have to wait for a future post. However, I do find it ironic that in the 1960’s while America was pouring resources into science so they could launch a rocket to the moon, Evangelicals began poring resources into creation science so they could launch a counter-attack on the theories of an old-earth and evolution.

These two myths, the myth of constant conflict between science and religion, and the myth of unanimous Evangelical rejection of an old earth and evolution, are being used today to promote opposing agendas. Militant atheists see it as a tool to help them meet their objective of eradicating religion. Militant creationists use it to prop up their credibility as defenders of the faith. Neither have any interest is seeing these myths exposed. And the objectives these myths prop up can be dangerous, dangerous to our faith, and dangerous to our mission. That will be discussed in my next post.

Recommended Further Reading:


“Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders”, byDavid Livingstone: Livingstone provides an overview of the Evangelical response to biological evolution, from the publishing of “On the Origin of the Species” up until the fundamentalist controversy in the early 20th century. As noted in my post, the response was occasionally positive, and the negative response was often understated.


“The Creationists”, by Ronald Numbers: If you are captivated by in-depth, heavily footnoted historical research (136 of 624 pages are footnotes), and fascinated by creationism, then this is the book for you. Ronald Numbers has written the definitive study on the movement. Although rejecting the conclusions of Creationism (it was the claims of Creation Science that caused him to abandon his faith), he writes an honest and thorough account that is at the same time respectful to the Creationist cause.


“When Science and Christianity Meet”, by David Lindberg & Ronald Numbers. A series of essays on the interaction between science and Christianity. The central theme of the book is that the relationship is complex, and that the characterization of the relationship as one of “constant conflict” is not accurate. An academic book, but an excellent volume. I particularly found the essay on Galileo interesting, as it showed the conflict was primarily political rather than religious.

Evangelicalism: Distinctive Characteristics

This is the second of four posts that provides an overview of the history & character of Evangelicalism, its historic response to evolution, and why the discussion of evolution matters today.

So what is Evangelicalism anyways? It seems everyone has his or her own definition or understanding. As my post last Monday showed, it’s not just an outgrowth of fundamentalism. It’s also not equivalent to “Born Again Christians” as not all that wear this label can be counted as evangelicals, and many evangelicals would strongly oppose the label. It is neither a denomination nor a creed, and although there are umbrella Evangelical organizations (eg. EFC in Canada and NAE in the US), none of them speak for nor control Evangelicals. One way to describe Evangelicalism is a form of Christianity born and bread in Anglo-American modernity that possesses several distinctive characteristics. I’ll outline my view of these characteristics below.

Evangelicals share several common characteristics with other broad sections of the Christian church. First they are staunch defenders of Orthodoxy. They adhere to the “right beliefs” passed down by the early church and formalized in the Apostles and the Nicene Creeds. Second, they are thoroughly Protestant. The revolt against the Catholic Church during the Reformation is seen as a necessary cleansing, and a recovery of the character of the early church prior to its cooption into the Roman Empire under Constantine. There is some disagreement today on what relationship Evangelicals should have with the Catholic Church, but there is pretty much unanimous agreement that leaving the Catholic Church was the right action for Protestants in the 16th century.

However, there are several distinctive characteristics that give Evangelicalism its unique personality. These characteristics are not necessarily unique to Evangelicals, but I believe they a) exhibit these characteristics most strongly, and b) are the only group which strongly exhibits all four of the following characteristics in combination.

Distinctive Characteristics:

1. Biblicalism: Evangelicals place a heavy emphasis on trusting the scripture. It is not simply a holy book, it is a book of divine revelation. Besides describing the bible as divinely inspired, many Evangelicals would also use the words authoritative, infallible, and inerrant to describe scripture. Many others would like to qualify some or all of these adjectives. Some would like to drop the adjective inerrant altogether. But all would agree unequivocally that scripture has its source in God.

2. Atonement: Emphasis is placed on Jesus death on the cross and his atoning work by which humanity can be reconciled to God. Whereas other traditions would put the emphasis on God’s incarnation in Christ (eg. Eastern Orthodox) or on his resurrection (eg. Roman Catholics), it is the death of Christ that is central to Christ’s work in an Evangelical understanding.

3. Personal repentance and commitment: For Evangelicals, religious ceremonies and traditions are, at best, of minimal importance. Of more importance are a) personal repentance (some would go so far as to say this must include a conversion or born-again experience) and b) a personal commitment to follow Christ in all areas of life (ie. Christianity is not just about Sunday morning).

4. Evangelism: A commitment to tell the good news of Christ’s kingdom to others.

From my perspective, only the first characteristic (Biblicalism) initiates a significant challenge for Evangelicals when considering evolution. The other three can easily accommodate a gradual creation process. How God created does not in any way challenge our understanding that Christ died for our sins, that we need to personally repent and commit ourselves to be followers of Christ, and that we should be spreading the good news of Christ’s Kingdom to others. (You could argue that the whole discussion on the origin of sin is intimately tied to the concept of atonement. I don’t believe this is the case and think this issue requires a rethinking of the concept of “Original Sin” by all Orthodox believers, not just Evangelicals).

But the defense of the bible is very important. Actually, I should say it is essential. If our interpretation of scripture cannot accommodate the theory of evolution, we need to either abandon one or the other. For most Evangelicals I believe this is the crux of the matter. Very, very few actually have the ability or desire to look at the scientific evidence. The decision against evolution is made primarily because of the perceived conflict between scriptural truth and scientific claims. What’s the point of looking at the scientific evidence? Either we are wasting our time (ie. Examining a hypothesis that is logically impossible) or worse, we are entering a quest that could prove our faith is a sham. For this reason, I think it’s important to first discuss the theological implications of evolution, and how evolution can be reconciled with biblical truth. That is why on this blog, at least initially, I’ll be putting more emphasis on posts that deal with the theological implications of evolution rather than the scientific evidence for evolution.

It is my contention that the Creationistic belief held by many Evangelicals is not simply poor science, it is also poor theology, and employs poor biblical interpretation. In fact, rather then defending the Living Word, it constricts the message. Rather than giving the scripture its proper place as the revelation of God, it turns it into an object of idolatry more in line with a Muslim view of the Koran.

Some Recommended Further Reading:

• “Streams of Living Water”, Richard Foster. I love Foster’s method of outlining 6 “streams” of Christianity from the birth of the Church until the present. Streams include: contemplative, holiness, charismatic, social justice, evangelical, and incarnational. For each stream, he outlines strengths and weaknesses. For the evangelical stream in particular, I think he nails the strengths and weaknesses on the head.
• “Canadian Evangelicalism in the 20th Century“, John Stackhouse. Overview of the Evangelical movement in Canada.
• Also see the 3 recommendations at the end of the "Not simply toned down fundamentalism" post.

Evangelicalism: Not simply "Toned down Fundamentalism"

This is the first of four posts that provides an overview of the history & character of Evangelicalism, its historic response to evolution, and why the discussion of evolution matters today.

Being an Evangelical can be embarrassing. After all, the popular impression, fueled somewhat by the media, is that Evangelicals are simply those Christians that are a) political right-wingers and b) anti-intellectual and anti-science. And the media can uncover and recount enough stories and sound bites to reinforce this impression.

Those with just enough understanding of Evangelical history to be dangerous would describe it this way:

• Fundamentalism is a reactionary Protestant movement born in the early 20th century in the southern US. Its two defining characteristics were anti-evolutionism (with the Scopes Monkey trial in 1925 being the critical event) and anti-communism.
• After WWII, the Fundamentalists redefined themselves as Evangelicals, toned down their rhetoric, and shifted their message to “being born-again”. However, this “kinder, gentler” Fundamentalism is still right wing and anti-science (and anti-evolution) at heart.

This characterization is wrong at so many levels that it’s difficult to know where to start. I certainly can’t untangle all these knots in a few blog entries. What I would like to address are the incorrect assumptions that 1) Evangelicalism is simply an outgrowth of Fundamentalism, 2) anti-evolutionism is inherent in Evangelicalism because of its characteristics, and 3) from the beginning Evangelicals were uniformly hostile to evolution. This post will deal with the first assumption.

The roots of Anglo-American Evangelicalism lie in the 18th century “Great Awakening”. Starting around 1730 great revivals swept through British and American churches led by evangelists like John Wesley, George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards. The emphasis of these revivals was personal repentance, Christ’s forgiveness, and conversion to a new life. What Wesley, Whitefield, and Edwards preached against was “dead religion”, an outward appearance of religion without true inner repentance.

Although new denominations were formed because of the Great Awakening (eg. Methodists), the revival also affected most protestant churches. People were encouraged to repent and commit their lives to Christ, but were not necessarily encouraged to abandon their denominational allegiance. Thus, unlike many other revolutions in the church and in Christian theology, the key result was not the formation of a new breakaway group of Christians that forged a new path on their own. Rather, these new ideas permeated virtually all protestant denominations. Even today, more than 250 years after the Great Awakening, most protestant denominations have an Evangelical component.

Fundamentalism on the other hand, was born in the early 20th century in the US. Between 1910 and 1915, a prominent group of Evangelicals published “The Fundamentals”, a series of books that outlined foundational doctrines for Christianity. This was meant to be a defense of the Christian faith, and especially of the scriptures, against modern theology and biblical criticism. Although the books themselves were measured in tone, they served as a rallying cry after WWII when conservative Evangelicals voiced militant opposition to modern theology, the cultural changes that modernism endorsed, and modern scientific ideas, particularly evolution. This resulted in schisms in several denominations between poles that were now termed “Liberal” and “Fundamentalist”.

The defining moment of Fundamentalism’s birth was the “Scopes Monkey Trial”. In 1924, a public school teacher named John Scopes was charged in Tennessee with teaching evolution, something that was forbidden by state law. Although the Fundamentalists won the legal war, they were widely ridiculed in the press and wider society, and thus lost the public relations war. This event was influential in the Fundamentalists sharp withdrawal from society. Whereas Evangelicals had always participated in wider culture and had been part of the American establishment, Fundamentalists now separated themselves from what they saw as “an ungodly society”.

Around 1950 the moderate evangelical voice reemerged under the leadership of the likes of Billy Graham. Rather than separating themselves from the wider culture, with a focus only on a defense of the bible, these Evangelicals again emphasized telling the good news of Christ’s kingdom. No longer were they content to sit on the sidelines. If they needed to work with “Liberal churches” to promote the gospel, so be it.

The above is obviously an extremely short summary of Evangelical and Fundamentalist history; many important themes have not even been touched, and some of my statements should probably be more nuanced. However, the key points are these.

• The birth of Evangelicalism preceded the birth of Fundamentalism by almost 200 years. Thus it is not correct to call it the progeny of Fundamentalism.
• Whereas Evangelicalism was primarily a positive movement (promoting the gospel), Fundamentalism was primarily a negative movement (against modern biblical interpretation and scientific theories that contradicted the bible). While Evangelicalism wanted to engage the wider culture, Fundamentalism wanted to withdraw from the wider culture.
• The Evangelical reemergence in the mid-20th century was not simply a maturing or modification of Fundamentalism. Rather, it was a rediscovery of its character prior to the onset of Fundamentalism.

So what can we conclude about the relationship between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism and why does it matter? The popular impression that Fundamentalism is either equivalent to, or the root of, Evangelicalism is wrong. However, it is clear that the early 20th century Fundamentalist phase still influences Evangelicalism. In “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind”, historian Mark Noll refers to this phase as “The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism”. I would agree that the influence has been primarily negative. At best, Fundamentalism was an extreme phase from which Evangelicals eventually emerged. At worst, fundamentalism is a cancer from which we are still trying to recover. The recent interest in “Creation Science” by Evangelicals leads me to believe that we have not completely rid ourselves of this disorder.

Recommended Further Reading:

• “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain”, D.W. Bebbington. An excellent overview of Evangelicalism from its birth in the early 18th century to the end of the 20th century. Although focusing on Britain, it does touch briefly on American Evangelicalism as well.
• “A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada”, Mark Noll. Covers all of Christianity and not just Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, but provides a complete overview of these movements in North America.
• “Fundamentalism and American Culture”, George Marsden. Simply the best book on the rise of fundamentalism in the early 20th century.