Re: [asa] Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept Evolution?

John:

I guess a few more on this list agree with you regarding the centrality
of the science-theology interface. You indicate that you believe it to
be central to faith.

Having said that I'm not really certain that's what you believe. But
you do believe that it is something very important for the church.

You say that such issues "hinge on the very definition of objective
reality and how we know whether anything is true or not."

I take this to mean that if someone rejects the "rational" methodology of
science and its derivatives, then they have rejected at least one very
important way that we discover "objective" reality. Such people put at
risk then the very notion of a real, objective God, etc. Such people, one
might suggest, have replaced "objective" reality with a wholly
"subjective" one, where wishes are beggars.

If this is something like your line of reasoning, I have no necessary
objection. I would only add that there are plenty of dangers to go
around, and can be stumbled upon no matter how careful one might be.

It is not necessarily the case that if one rejects evolution that one
rejects anymore than anyone else the "objectivity" of God and His
Salvation. Indeed, it would be a very common YEC view that those who have
embraced evolution have substituted the objective Word of God for man's
word. My point being that I don't believe that any YEC I have ever met is
in any greater danger of rejecting an "objective" reality. They may
simply disagree with you regarding how that "objective" reality is to be
known.

You are concerned about the perception that nonbelievers or perhaps
possible believers have of the church. I suggest that this is not a PR
problem. You will always have this problem. Indeed, I am more concerned
that the church become invisible than that it stand out.

Here are some of the problems that I see daily:

1) Faith is weak.
2) God is invisible and tenuous.
3) Our relationship with Christ is tentative.
4) Christ appears irrelevant.
5) God is distant, lacking in immanence.
6) Little sense of God at work in us and through us.
7) Insensitivity to sin and salvation.

Maybe you can work science and evolution into these issues, but it doesn't
seem central, as you suggest. If anything, science and evolution
complicate and aggravate the problem.

That's the way I see it from here.

bill

  On Fri, 23 Oct
2009, John Walley wrote:

>

There are lots of areas of study and knowledge and faith and practice where
disagreement in the church is immaterial and not worth making an issue of like
for instance infant baptism, speaking in tongues, the sabbath, etc. But I don't
think evolution and the associated issues of science and faith like the age of
the earth are in that category. These all hinge on the very definition of
objective reality and how we know whether anything is true or not. Plus it is a
lso a pivotal spiritual battleground on which society's response to faith and
the church is being decided. The stakes are high, maybe not even a stretch to
say one day they may be life and death.

But even besides these reasons, more importantly the church is called to seek and embody Truth, i.e. Jesus. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, nor imagine the experience of anyone who would say that this is some optional, esoteric, lower order issue. I feel that untethers Christianity from objective reality and makes it some kind of meaningless mind science, salt that has lost its savor.

Thanks

John

----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
To: Pete Enns <peteenns@mac.com>
Cc: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>; Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; Keith Miller <keithbmill@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Fri, October 23, 2009 3:15:59 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept Evolution?

John:

In my church my pastor has encouraged me to lead discussion relative to evolution.  To date, I have resisted.

I am interested in such discussions, but I am only interested in their implications regarding our relationship with Christ.  I suspect that evolution, whether fully embraced or not, has had a profound effect upon our entire notion of the nature of the world, ourselves, and God.

I have no interest in arguing for the truth or falsehood of evolution, or any number of other similar topics, in a Bible Study.  I am interested, however, in how such views or attitudes (perhaps more important) infest and indwell our relationship with God.  The intent of such discussions would be lay bare such influences and discuss it between ourselves and God (a la Job).

There is sin here and wounding.
No, I'm not saying believing in some form of evolution is a sin, anymore than believing in a Six Day Creation makes us Holy.  There is always sin before God and our neighbor.  It requires confession and cleansing in Christ's Blood.

bill

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Pete Enns wrote:

> My experience is yours, John.
>
> Pete Enns
>
> On Oct 23, 2009, at 6:35 AM, John Walley wrote:
>
>>
>> Agian, I contend the schools are localized, and the 46% that accept evolution and the 44% that hold to a literal reading of Genesis are as well.  For instance is Southern Evangelical Seminary represented in FESP? I bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone there that accepts evolution and if so it is likley a closely a guarded secret.
>>
>> Excepting what they believe in Ivory Tower seminaries, I can tell you that where it matters on a practical level like on the staffs of churches, down here in evangelical churches, a non-literal reading of Genesis is not really on the table and accepting evolution is a one way ticket out of the fellowship.
>>
>> Hopefully that will continue to change though.
>>
>> John
>>
>> From: Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
>> To: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Keith Miller <keithbmill@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Fri, October 23, 2009 5:46:43 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept Evolution?
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> That is a good point on who in included in the definition of "Evangelical" but I think Waltke's "practical definition" below is a good one for this purpose
>>
>> For practical reasons, I restricted “evangelical theologian” to those educators within institutions whose presidents belong the Fellowship of Evangelical Seminary Presidents (FESP).
>>
>> so I don't think the conclusion can be criticized as localized.
>>
>> I found two points very, very interesting:
>>
>> 1) I have the same perception as Keith that evangelical Hebrew and OT scholars have laid some great groundwork here lately (eg. recent books by Waltke, Enns, and John Walton at Wheaton).  However, in the survey, the straightforward reading of Gen 1 and 2 was the largest single barrier to accepting evolution (44%) while the barriers 3 and 4 (Adam's Fall, and Adam's headship) were considered barriers by only 34% and 28% respectively. So my personal perception that Paul's use of Adam is a much, much more difficult issue than the interpretation of Gen itself, does not seem to be shared by evangelical theologians.
>>
>> 2) More of evangelical theologians accepted evolution (46%) than chose any single barrier identified by Waltke.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:18 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I suggest this is a localized observation and/or it depends on who you consider to be evangelical and who considers themselves evangelical.
>>
>> For instance in a parallel thread we have been discussing the apologetics conference at the link below which is a who's who in evangelical circles and the only thing in common among all of them is that they all reject evolution except possibly Colson. In my neck of the woods it is very rare to find anyone who terms themselves an evangelical that accepts evolution. I am still glad to hear the report though.
>>
>> John
>>
>> www nationalapologeticsconference dot com
>>
>> From: Keith Miller <keithbmill@gmail.com>
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Thu, October 22, 2009 10:04:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Almost Half of Evangelical Theologians Accept Evolution?
>>
>> I am not at all surprised by this survey's results.  It has been my perception that evangelical theologians - particularly Hebrew and Old Testament Scholars - has been increasingly outspoken that there is no necessary conflict between evolutionary science and a faithful reading of scripture.  This is true of theologians who have personal reservations or doubts about the validity of biological evolution (particularly as it concerns humans) - Henri Blocher and J.I. Packer come to mind here. However, once it is recognized that scripture does not demand a rejection of biological evolution, then that person is open to persuasion by the scientific evidence.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Steve Martin (CSCA)
>>
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 24 01:24:18 2009