Human Evolution and the Bible (RJS)

Last updated on: September 10, 2015 at 6:51 am By RJS

The final substantive section of Gary N. Fugle’s book Laying Down Arms to Heal the Creation-Evolution Divide looks at the regions of (apparent) conflict between evolutionary biology and the Christian Bible. His approach is predicated on the assumption that “we cannot comfortably argue that God created one reliable source of information in the Bible and created a second conflicting, unreliable source in nature.” And he goes on: “This means we should use Scripture to rightly interpret what we observe and experience in nature and, at the same time, allow the natural world to inform us how to rightly interpret the Bible.” (p. 225) He is convinced that “the bible is inerrant in what God intended to communicate.” (p. 228) But this doesn’t mean that human interpretations are inerrant. In the post on Tuesday Reading the Bible With Evolution in Mind we looked at his discussion of creation in six days and the biblical flood. Today we will turn to the question of human evolution and its impact on our reading of Genesis 2-3.

Adam, Eve, and Original Sin. This is the tough one for most Christians. There are two related questions.

First, in what way are humans distinct from other animals? Is it through a distinct special creation? The DNA and fossil evidence suggests not. To answer this question Fugle first considers the meaning of “image of God” as used in Genesis 1:26-27. He sees this as a combination of characteristics and calling. “We are made like God in the ability to reason and understand and form a spiritual relationship with our Creator.” (p. 250) and “with these characteristics, humans are distinctly created to be God’s representatives on earth,as stewards over the rest of creation.” (p. 250) Next Fugle considers Adam and Eve. One view holds that Genesis 2-3 is a meaningful metaphorical account describing who and what humans are. This view is consistent with Christian orthodoxy and shouldn’t simply be dismissed out of hand. However, it is not the view that Fugle prefers. He prefers the option that suggests “that Adam was singly taken aside by God from physically evolved humans and the image of God was divinely imparted to him.” (p. 252) The divinely bestowed image was passed on to his offspring. This view has problems of its own, primarily that the DNA evidence does not support descent from a single pair as Fugle acknowledges. Overall Fugle’s reading values the contributions made by Derek Kidner (Genesis), C. John Collins (Genesis 1-4) and Denis Alexander (Creation or Evolution).

Second, what about the entrance of sin? Fugle hangs onto the idea of a unique couple because he finds the entrance of sin and death through Adam to be a foundational part of Paul’s teaching in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. This doesn’t mean that all death entered with Adam’s sin. The tree of life in the garden is ample reason to believe that Adam and Eve were mortal apart from the divine gift of God. Other animals were also mortal. However, in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 “Paul is unquestionably referring to Adam and his actions as if they are a historical reality on par with the reality of Jesus.” (p. 255) In his view the connection Paul is making between a singular real Adam and Jesus is broken if Adam is symbolic. More than this it would make us wonder about Paul’s inspired authority.

It is one thing for Paul to have inaccurate perceptions about natural science that are not corrected in Scripture, but it is something else for him to be wrong or figurative about real world descriptions that are so central to his theology. If Paul is wrong or loose with the historical reality of Adam, is he credible in his interpretation of events in his own time or how he saw Jesus in other passages of the Old Testament? (p. 255)

Paul often refers back to the Old Testament as he describes Jesus as God’s Messiah. Fugle asks:

But if Paul is wrong or purposely artistic about Adam, isn’t he just as likely to be inaccurate or unclear in his other insights? The profound implication is that this challenges the inspired nature of Scripture and its authority. (p. 256)

In addition to the implications for the trustworthiness of Paul and the authority of Scripture, Fugle also finds a historical Fall as significant for the core biblical themes of redemption and restoration.

Redemption and restoration are terms that primarily mean a return to a state that once existed but was lost. Importantly, they do not typically mean improvement or correction from an inherent negative condition that was always present. Paul’s message (and the message throughout Scripture) makes most sense if Jesus redeems us to a condition once experienced in Adam. This fundamental Christian proclamation is muddled if human sinfulness has always been an aspect of human nature. (p. 256)

But is Adam really so central to Paul’s thinking?

I have a number of comments on this section.

First, centrality of Adam. If Paul’s reference to Adam is central to his theology and thus to our understanding of Christ and God’s work in the world, then Fugle’s position and conclusions are reasonable. They are consistent with mainstream science and with Christian orthodoxy. Many Christian scientists I know hold to variants of this position. I will never rule this out as a viable alternative. In fact, I think that some kind of Fall is historical reality, although not necessarily of a unique couple. The Fall is historical reality along the same lines that the idea of creation by God in the beginning is historical reality. However, I am not convinced that Adam is central to Paul’s theology. Adam may be invoked for illustrative purposes. And this leads to the second point.

Second, artistry in illustration. I don’t see why Paul could not be purposely artistic about the Adam. It seems obvious that he was purposely artistic about Abraham’s seed in Galatians 3:16:

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

Paul is using a promise to Abraham about his son, grandsons, great grandsons … to make a point about Jesus and about gentiles. He is using the passages in Genesis in a way that they were not originally intended and in a way that they are not generally read today. Paul’s point in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 is Jesus, not Adam and in Galatians 3 it is Jesus, not Abraham’s seed. In other words, Paul may be using Scripture in a manner consistent with his Jewish culture to make a point about Jesus. This is a point his audience would understand.

Third, Paul’s limits. Paul could have mistakenly believed that Adam was historical and used the passage of Scripture to make a point about Jesus. The specific point he was making may rest on the received story of Genesis 3 rather than an ontological fact. No one has convincingly explained to me how this would undercut Paul’s inspiration concerning the message he was preaching from God concerning Jesus. Fugle suggests that if Paul was in error or used Adam artistically it undermines the authority of Scripture and “tends to reduce the bible to a human-constructed book containing inaccurate connections and/or poetic manipulations that are difficult to decipher.” (p. 256) This is an issue that deserves consideration at greater depth. However, it seems to me that the major issue isn’t really Paul’s use of Scripture but the origin of sin. And this leads to the fourth point.

Fourth, redemption from a singular act. If creation, fall, redemption is the central theme of Scripture then a singular fall clearly defined in time may well be of central theological importance. This is a topic for discussion. Although creation, fall, redemption, new creation is a common casting of the biblical story it is not entirely clear to me that this is the best way to frame the sweep of scripture. I am not convinced that the Bible is structured as a logical argument – introduction, problem, solution, conclusion. Rather the Bible is the story of God’s relationship with his creatures.

Over the last several years I have spent most of my commutes listening to Scripture read or performed in order to be immersed in and formed by the story of God’s work in the world. (Far better than spending the time immersed in talk radio (HT T)). I have also chosen to read and review a number of books on Old Testament theology in order to dig deeper into topics that are not often raised in church (Iain Provan’s Seriously Dangerous Religion, Walter Moberly’s Old Testament Theology, Richard Middleton’s The Liberating Image, and John Walton and Tremper Longman’s NIVAC and Baker commentaries on Job are examples of this focus – but don’t hold any of these people responsible for my views) .

Some things seem clear in the sweep of Scripture.

God is Sovereign, and this includes God as Creator.

Humans are fallen and have been fallen for all of remembered history.

The major theme of the story is the faithfulness of God. God is faithful, though humans are not. We see this faithfulness from Genesis 1 through Revelation, but it is especially the connecting theme from Genesis 3 through Acts.

God has made known his law. “And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.“

Jesus actions recorded in the Gospel’s are framed in terms of his identity as God’s Messiah. (The Prophets are essential for understanding this.)

Paul (and others) bring to the Old Testament story the new realization that God’s faithfulness involved incarnation.
- Jesus is the faithful human (the faithful Israelite, the faithful seed of Abraham)
- Jesus is the answer to the promise of an eternal Davidic Dynasty
- The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
- In the beginning was the Word … and the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

The high Christology of the New Testament is significant. God himself did what humans not only did not do but could not do. I am not convinced that our inability was the result of Adam’s sin. Somehow it is part of being mortal – not God – in the context of God’s creation.

God’s plan for the ultimate future is something we cannot really begin to fathom. It will be something different, where night and sea (chaos) and human sin are no longer part of the picture. Our science, based on this world, cannot get us from here to there.

Redemption from the singular sin of Adam does not seem an emphasis in the sweep of scripture. Perhaps our errant human interpretation of Paul in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15 and of Genesis 3 has made the singular act of Adam and Eve so important. One drawback of this interpretation is that it seems to make the incarnation a response, rather than part of God’s plan from the beginning. I don’t think that this is consistent with the relationship between creation and Christ found in John 1 and Colossians 1.

God is not the author of evil. Some suggest that the singular sin of Adam and Eve is required to save God from being the author of sin and evil. However, it seems to me that it is really the bestowal of genuine creaturely freedom that saves God from this charge. This freedom could have come in any way at any time. The important fact is that given freedom we fell individually and as a species. I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis’s description in The Problem of Pain, CH 5 “The Fall of Man.”

For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumbs could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this stage for ages before it became man: it may have even been clever enough to make things which a clever archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes where directed to purely material and natural ends. Then in fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that is could perceive time flowing past. … We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods. … They wanted some corner in the universe in which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But there is no such corner. They wanted to be nouns, but they were and must eternally be, mere adjectives. We have no idea what particular act, or series of acts, the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence.

God could have created humans any way he chose. It makes little sense to sit in judgment on his choice. All we can really do is go with the evidence. And the evidence seems clear: God created humans through evolutionary processes. The process probably involved a population no smaller than some thousands. Like Fugle (although I don’t quite agree with all of his conclusions and I am sure that he doesn’t agree with all of mine) I think that we should use Scripture to rightly interpret what we observe and experience in nature and, at the same time, allow the natural world to inform us how to rightly interpret the Bible.

All in all Fugle’s book is an excellent resource on the interaction of evolutionary biology with Christian faith. It will open the door for many important discussions. His commitment to Christian faith, his honesty with the scientific evidence, and his clear readable style make it a book well worth reading.

And let’s resume a discussion. I am open to being convinced that a unique Adam and Eve and a singular well defined act of rebellion are essential for redemption through Christ to be meaningful. As Fugle and others (Tim Keller, Derek Kidner, Denis Alexander, Jack Collins, Henri Blocher, John Stott, for example) have shown, there are ways to reconcile human evolution with such a view.

Is Adam central to Christian theology?

Is the Biblical story best framed as introduction, problem, solution, conclusion? (I.e. as creation, fall, redemption, new creation)

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Keeping Your Faith Alive: Some Questions for Us (Phillip Camp)

Last updated on: September 6, 2015 at 5:30 pm By Scot McKnight

Moses Speaks to the Church in Deuteronomy: Keeping the Faith Alive

Phillip Camp

God’s desire for his people is life, a real, full, vibrant life of blessing and purpose in God’s presence. In Deuteronomy, God’s call for Israel to trust and obey him expresses that desire (e.g., Deut 6:2-3; 7:11-14; 10:12-13; 28:1-14; 30:11-20). However, the very real danger of Israel turning away from God hangs over Israel in Deuteronomy. As with the exodus generation, this new generation, who now stands on the border, and future generations could choose against God and God’s call. So it is imperative to keep the faith alive within the community. Deuteronomy provides seven means (a nicely biblical number!) woven into the life of the community to help God’s people keep the faith alive, then and now.

1. Informally, in daily speech and deeds (Deut 6:1-9). Couched in the great call to love God with one’s entire being, Moses tells Israel to impress God’s commandments on their children. How? By talking to the children about God’s will everywhere, day and night. God’s word should permeate every level of the community: the individual (bound on the hands and head); the household (on the doorposts of the house); and the larger community (on the gates). Language of God’s will should fill their conversation with respect to every aspect of life. Of course, the expectation would be not simply talking about the commands but also obeying them.

How do we cultivate the regular conversation and practice of the faith in our lives, homes, and churches?

2. Telling the story of God’s mighty deeds (Deut 6:20-25; 26:5-10). Israel is to tell its story of God at work for and among them. Sometimes the telling comes in informal settings. For example, when the children ask about the commandments, the response is not “Because God said so!” Rather, the “why” is answered in the parents’ recital of the story of God’s mighty delivering of Israel from Egypt and bringing them into the Promised Land. At other times, the Israelites tell the story in formal, liturgical settings. So, as the Israelites present the first of the harvest to the priest at the sanctuary, they are to recite a fixed creed that recounts the story of God with Israel going in and out of Egypt. The firstfruits are an acknowledgement that they continue to live under the blessing of their God.

What informal and formal settings provide us to opportunity to recite the mighty acts of God in Israel, in Jesus Christ, through the Spirit, and in the history of God’s people? What might such recitations look like in those contexts?

3. Holy Days and Feasts (Deut 5:12-16; 16:14-15). Weekly Sabbath observances as well as the celebrations of the three annual major festivals become opportunities for reviving the faith. Sabbath, in Deuteronomy’s version of the Ten Commandments, is a weekly reminder that all Israelites are beneficiaries of rest because God delivered them from Egypt. It is also a weekly reminder to imitate the character of God by providing rest. Passover (with the Feast of Unleavened Bread), the Festival of Weeks, and the Festival of Booths are joyful annual celebrations that reorient Israel on the God who has provided for them and protected them, with the anticipation that God will continue to do so. The festivals even draw Israel into their story, reenacting past events but also showing the continuity of God’s care and blessing into the present and anticipation of such care in the future. Thus, the feasts are celebrated with joy. Furthermore, they are inclusive of the entire community, regardless of station in life or status. Therefore, the festivals also remind the whole community of their common redemption by God.

What weekly and annual observances can help us keep the faith alive in our communities and how? How do our observances draw us into the story of faith? Or do they?

4. Giving gifts to God and others (Deut 15:7-11, 19-23; 14:22-29; 16:16-17). When Israel gives offerings at the festivals, they acknowledge that God has blessed them. Likewise, giving generously to the poor leads to God’s ongoing generous blessing in the land. Thus giving directs Israel’s attention not only to the one in need but also to the God who has and will make the generous giving possible. Tithing brings these together as a reminder of God’s blessing and a means to share God’s blessings with those in need within the community.

How can our giving be a reflection of and response to our experience of God’s grace? (Cf. 2 Cor 8:1-9)

5. Symbols (Deut 22:12; 27:1-4). Israelites are to make tassels for the four corners of their cloaks. The purpose of the tassels is not defined in Deuteronomy, but Numbers 15:37-40 indicates that when Israel saw these tassels they would remember God’s commands and not pursue the lusts of their hearts and eyes. After they have entered the land, Israel’s elders are to erect stones on Mount Ebal with the all the words of the torah written on them. The stones will remind the people of their covenant with God. These symbols remind Israel of who they are and of the life and mission to which God has called them.

What symbols can we and our churches use to remind us of who we are and of the life and mission God has given us in Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit?

6. Song (Deut 31:19-22; 32:1-43). God commands Moses to write a song to remind Israel of their covenant obligations with God. More specifically, the song in Deuteronomy 32 will serve as a witness against Israel when they turn from God to pursue other gods and so experience the curses of the covenant. The song itself highlights God’s faithfulness to Israel, God’s judgment on Israel for their unfaithfulness, God’s restoration and vindication of Israel, and God’s incomparability. Such songs are a powerful vehicle for ingraining the faith in our hearts, memories, and imaginations.

What do the songs we sing in church convey about God and our life with God? How do we ensure that what sing is faithful to Scripture and sound theology?

7. Public reading of the Scripture (Deut 31:9-13). Every seven years, at the Festival of Booths, the priests were to read the torah publicly to all who gathered for the feast. There, the children who have never heard the law read will hear it, and the people who have heard it will be reminded and refreshed on its content and meaning. Keep in mind that the Israelites would not have had private copies of the torah. Though seven-year intervals seem a long time to remember something that was read, oral cultures often have a better ability to retain what they hear. Also, remember that Israel is to post and recite the commands in their daily lives, bringing us full circle to the first way of keeping the word ever-present in Israel.

Is public reading of significant portions of Scripture a regular part of our gatherings? Over time, do we and our children hear the whole counsel and story of Scripture?

In these ways, Deuteronomy guides us in keeping the faith alive in the community of God today. Such practices immerse the community in language and practice of the faith with the hope that we, our children, and their children are faithful to God and so choose life.

Phillip Camp is an Associate Professor of Bible in Lipscomb University’s Hazelip School of Theology and in the College of Bible of Ministry. His latest book is Living as the Community of God: Moses Speaks to the Church in Deuteronomy (CrossLink, 2014).

Heresy: The Mother of Orthodoxy (and what about Calvinism?)

Last updated on: August 31, 2015 at 7:26 am By Scot McKnight

The mother of orthodoxy, says Roger Olson in his book Counterfeit Christianity: The Persistence of Errors in the Church, is heresy in that it was often a heresy (or a suspicious idea at the time) that provoked Christian theologians to explain what was truly orthodox. Let us then say that it worked like this, which is a little more nuanced and a sketch Olson would no doubt approve:

First, the story that comes to completion in Jesus and his death and resurrection and ascension. Second, the apostolic faith moves from Jerusalem into the Roman world. Third, someone in the church at some level challenges what the apostles have been teaching — what is found in what we now call the New Testament. Fourth, Christian theologians — from the apostles to today — respond by articulating what is most consistent with the gospel and thus with what has been believed. This articulation is called orthodoxy. The articulations often enough are provoked by something that was soon called heresy.

This orthodoxy is rooted unequivocally in the gospel about Jesus (1 Cor 15:3-8) but is unfolded over time and in response to new issues, and this responsiveness occurs already at the time of the apostles (e.g., Colossians or 1 John). It did not arise with Constantine and Nicea. That’s such a bonehead piece of history that is somehow credible to so many today — or that is something folks today want to believe as true. It’s not.

Thus, read the rules of faith (regula fidei) or canon of faith as sorted out independently by Irenaeus and Tertullian (on creeds, see this link). E.g., Irenaeus:

. . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .

Olson, after years of teaching theology, says the Nicene Creed teaches “one what and three whos” and Chalcedon teaches “one who and two whats” (32).

Olson sums it up with this: orthodoxy refers to the deity and humanity of the one person Jesus Christ (incarnation and hypostatic union), the Trinity (God is one being, substance existing as three distinct persons), and salvation is by grace alone and cannot be earned. He affirms as entailments at least that miracles are real and that there is objective reality in the atonement of Jesus at the cross.

The source of this orthodoxy is not the tradition but the tradition is an unfolding of what is in the Bible, and if it is not in the Bible the tradition needs to change. He has a sola scriptura approach, which is a kind of prima scriptura and not “the Bible alone.”

What heresies then become evident in the history of the church?

Gnosticism

Montanism and Marcionism

Adoptionism, Arianism, and Nestorianism

Subordinationism, Modalism, and Tritheism

Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism

And this is where Olson turns up the heat because his book is not just about historical errors but about the persistence of errors in the church, and so he examines two modern day teachings that breach orthodoxy at times and can be called heresies at times. He looks at “unofficial” heresies here, three of them. He says he could not affiliate with a church that affirms any of these. He examines here beliefs and not persons.

Making God a monster by divine determinism. [Yes, he takes a look at some forms of Calvinism here.]

Reducing God to manageable size in moralistic therapeutic deism.

Using God for personal gain in the gospel of health and wealth.

So, let’s look at the first of the modern teachings that sometimes become heresy: divine determinism. He defines it:

For our purposes here, divine determinism means belief, whether explicit or implicit, that God determines all things according to a preconceived plan and by his omnipotent power, including sin and evil (123).

In the words of one very popular Christian pastor, teacher, author, and evangelist, absolutely everything that happens, without exception, was planned, ordained, and governed” by God (123).

Augustine affirms both meticulous sovereignty and unconditional predestination (124). He sums it up:

To recap briefly, then, some Christians, following Augustine’s teaching, have believed that God exercises meticulous, detailed, “fine grained” sovereignty over everything—down to the most minute details of history and individuals’ lives (124).

Which raises the problem acutely, and if one doesn’t see it as a problem, well, then, let’s move on:

Of course, Augustine’s belief and teaching about God’s sovereignty raises to an intense pitch the issue of sin and evil: Is God the author of them? Augustine answered negatively: no, God is not the author of sin and evil. And yet, many have asked, how can that be if God controls everything including the “movement” of creatures’ wills? Augustine simply denied that this makes God the author of sin and evil as that, too, would offend the dignity of God. So he left it as a paradox—an unresolved apparent contradiction. Sin and evil stem from creatures’ rebellious wills, not from God’s will, although God wills to permit them and they, too, cannot fall outside God’s overall sovereignty (125).

Our conclusion is, then, that Augustine’s doctrine of God’s sovereignty logically implies divine determinism even with regard to sin and evil even if he did not affirm that God determines them. Colloquially expressed, “he worked it out” (126).

Someone who did work it out was Zwingli, the most radical of all divine determinists. Calvin was more cautious and lets God off the hook not by appealing to divine permissions. Olson:

In sum, according to Calvin, everything that happens, including sinful and evil deeds, are foreordained and rendered certain by God while God remains unstained by their wickedness because he does not force creatures but only permits them to sin. But God’s permission of sin and evil is “willing permission.” God is not the author of sin and evil because, although he foreordains and renders them certain, he does not directly cause them. Zwingli was clearer (129).

On Edwards:

In other words, Edwards said that while God does not coerce or force anyone to sin, he does design, ordain, and govern sin for a purpose. Sin is willed and rendered certain by God. At least he “bit the bullet” most Reformed Christians will not bite and admitted that God is the author of sin and evil in that sense (132).

He turns to Sproul and Piper. On Sproul:

Ultimately, then, God, the all-determining reality, determines that people will sin, but somehow without causing them to sin. It seems fair to say that for Sproul, as for Augustine, Zwingli, and Edwards (if not for Calvin, too!), sin and evil are rendered certain by God for a greater good—the full revelation of God’s glory; It’s important to say here that Sproul does not intend to make God ths author of sin and evil. He probably draws back from even Edwards’s admission that, in some highly qualified sense, God is the author of sin and evil. However, the logic of his doctrine of God’s absolute, all-encompassing sovereignty leads inexorably in that direction. One cannot be blamed for calling his view a version of divine determinism even if he does not like that language (133).

On Piper:

Piper is bold in proclaiming the absolute sovereignty of God to the point of preaching that even if a “dirty bomb” fell on a city it would be from God. Whenever a disaster or calamity happens, including one that involves sin and innocent suffering, Piper boldly proclaims that it is “from God.” He does not mean that God directly caused the perpetrators to sin—especially not against their own perverse wills. However, even their perverse wills are under the control of God’s sovereignty. Nowhere does Piper say that God is the author of sin and evil, but it seems fair to assume that he agrees with Edwards (134).

Olson’s conclusion:

In my opinion, and many other Christians’ opinions, making God the author of sin and evil is heresy. Most Reformed, Calvinist Christians do not fall into that. They are careful to keep a distance between God and evil. There is a difference between, for example, Sproul Sr.’s view and Sproul Jr.’s view. How great a difference is debatable, because it seems the son’s view is simply the “good and necessary consequence” of the father’s view. However, it’s important not to attribute conclusions to people they expressly deny believing (135).

It would seem, then, that all forms of divine determinism are on the precipice of heresy even if only calling God the author of sin and evil is outright heresy (136).

Christian congregations and denominations ought to root out divine determinism, especially the view that God is the author of sin and evil, and perhaps also the view that God designed, ordained, and governs them (136).

Resisting the Kingdom Trend

Last updated on: September 1, 2015 at 7:24 am By Scot McKnight

The biggest challenge to traditional kingdom theory is coming from NT scholars and tide is changing. The kingdom trend is to think Jesus and the apostles mean one of two things when they use the expression. Either it means the dynamic rule or reign of God or it means social justice and peace. In my book Kingdom Conspiracy I call these two options the pleated pants theory and the skinny jeans kingdom theory. This post will focus on the challenge to the pleated pants (reduction to dynamic reign).

My contention in that book, and the reason I wrote it is because my mind has shifted from the pleated pants and at times a hint of the skinny jeans theories to another view, is that these two theories are missing the mark and that kingdom is a complex of five elements: king, rule, people, place and law. I became dissatisfied with both theories and summoned myself to the Bible and historical texts to investigate this all over again. What I see in each is a reduction of kingdom to one or two elements — for the skinny jeans to justice and peace and for the pleated pants to redemptive rule. Both say something right, but both are reductive.

So, when someone like Reggie McNeal leans as he does toward the skinny jeans crowd in his book Kingdom Come, I both don’t blame him and think at the same time he’s fundamentally wrong. I will dip into his book in the weeks ahead, but today I want to call your attention to two scholars who have written about the kingdom in ways that show that the tide is moving away from reductionism and moving toward much greater appreciation of the Jewish context of what kingdom meant and what it therefore means for us today.

From the first of the NT scholarly challenges I provide only a quotation and from the second, perhaps America’s most knowledgeable NT scholar (and I don’t say that lightly), a sketch of his fresh analysis of what kingdom meant to Jesus.

First, R. McL. Wilson, one of the UK’s most prominent experts in gnosticism and in the NT. The most highly respectable English-language commentary series of the 20th-21st Centuries is the ICC (International Critical Commentary). Wilson is the author of the commentary on Colossians, and I grab this quotation from him as he summarizes what kingdom means in the NT. [1]

It has been argued that the primary significance is that of sovereignty, the rule of God in the hearts and lives of men and women, rather than that of a realm or kingdom. This, however, may be to introduce a false contrast: sovereignty implies a territory within which that sovereignty is exercised, a community over which the sovereign rules, people who accept that rule.

Notice his elements: (1) rule of God, (2) territory (or land), (3) community (people), and “people who accept that rule” implies there is (4) a law by which that sovereign king rules.

Notice, too, what he is opposing: the pleated pants theory so typical among NT scholars. What do they think? That kingdom means “the rule of God in the hearts and lives of men and women” (so Dalman-ish, so Harnack-ian, and also so evangelical-sounding) and the pleated pants sorts believe this over against “a realm or kingdom” (that is, a place or a territory). You may know that the major alternative many of us were taught and also taught was that you must choose between “rule” (the reality of ruling, of sovereignty, the dynamic, the spirituality) and “realm” (which implies territory and land and a geographical space). It can’t be both, we were taught and we continued to teach.

Wilson thinks that alternative is false, as do I, and he thinks kingdom implies rule, space, people and law. This from someone who is famous for his historical analysis, wherever that analysis might lead. He also has no dog in this fight theologically from what I can tell.

Now to Dale Allison, Jr., and his book Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (BakerAcademic, 2010). Two observations: try as you may you won’t discover Dale’s theology, unless it is a-theology; instead, what you will find with Dale is rigorous historical investigation wherever the evidence leads. Dale has written the finest commentary ever written — the ICC — on Matthew (with WD Davies, 3 volumes), and as well the best commentary ever written on James (again, the ICC). In addition, he is the author of a number of exceptional studies, my favorite being his book The New Moses. His newest big book, Constructing Jesus, is yet another example of his meticulous efforts. He, too, has no dog in this fight. He sets out to discern just what Jesus meant by kingdom, and he approaches the five points I outlined above though his emphasis is heavily futuristic.

In this book is an “excursus” on kingdom of God (164-204), and he makes 18 points. Here they are:

1. “Gustaf Dalman famously affirmed, “No doubt can be entertained that both in the Old Testament and in Jewish literature mlkwt, when applied to God, means always the ‘kingly rule’ (Herrschaft), never the ‘kingdom’ (Reich), as if it were meant to suggest the territory governed.” Dalman supported this statement, which much subsequent discussion has almost taken for granted, by appealing to Ps 22:29… 103:19; 145:11-13; Obad 21; and a number of rabbinic texts” (170).

Dale Allison calls into question all the evidence Dalman uses here and offers counter evidence, which is what I offer in Kingdom Conspiracy, both from the OT and Josephus, with brief glances elsewhere. I, too, in Kingdom Conspiracy, pointed a long finger at Dalman — what Dale says here is accurate: “has almost taken for granted” — I might have said it stronger: most have relied upon Dalman and simply assumed he got it right. Here’s a big point: if Dalman was wrong, the kingdom theory of the pleated pants folks falls off their legs into a heap!

2. “Both basileia and mlkwt, as the dictionaries indicate, often mean “kingdom,” and it takes only rudimentary acquaintance with Jewish texts to realize that God is the ruler of the realm known as “heaven,” and further that, in both this age and the age to come, God’s kingship cannot be separated from the people of Israel, who in turn are inextricably bound up with the fate of their land and its capital, Jerusalem. It is almost inescapable, then, that many passages about God’s eschatological rule, even some in which mlkwt could mean “royal rule,” have a territorial dimension…” [for which he offers abundant support, e.g., Isa 24:23].

3. “Christian exegetical tradition has, however, habitually sought to separate the kingdom of God from Jewish territorial expectations.” He calls this “ecclesiastical eisegesis” (175). He continues: “After the fourth century, conceptualizing the kingdom of God as an earthly, territorial kingdom ceased to be an option for the vast majority of exegetes. Thereafter orthodox theologians and commentators usually agreed with Augustine, who closely associated the kingdom with the church invisible, that is, the elect on earth and in heaven” (175).

Let us call what it is: this is anti-Judaism and de-Judaizing of the Bible and Christian theology; sometimes it become anti-Semitic as well. But most importantly, it is universalizing the Bible at the expense of its Jewishness. Dale provides a good quotation from Dalman to this point.

4. The term “kingdom of God” is kingdom plus ruler, and this is found in the OT all over the place — and refers to the “ruler’s realm” (177), where “realm” means territory not simply dynamic reign (which was what Dalman handed on).

5. Frequently the Gospels use “kingdom” for a “territory ruled by a king, kingdom” (BDAG, and Allison cites Mark 3:24; 6:23; 13:8; Matt 4:8; 12:25-26; Luke 19:12, 15).

6. Sometimes in the Gospels “kingdom” sounds like a “place” (178), and he cites Matt 13:41-42; 14:25…

7. The sayings about “entering” the kingdom have to be entering into some kind of “place” (pp. 179-181), where they are modeled upon “entering into the land” (Exod 12:25). This is a theology of “second entry” (181).

8. He refers to and embraces the work of Jonathan Pennington’s work on kingdom where kingdom of heaven is posed as more than simply an equivalent for “God” (which also goes back to Dalman). Further, “of heaven/s” is territorial in Matthew, the place where God rules now.

9. The Beatitudes confirm this: Matthew 5:3; 5:5 — the second one is “land” (not earth) and it defines the first one, hence “kingdom” and “land” are territorial in connotation.

10. At the cross — Luke 23:42 — Jesus is asked by the one co-crucified about remembering him when he enters kingdom and kingdom here is defined by Jesus as “paradise,” which always means a place/territory (183).

11. The Gospel of Thomas conceptualizes the kingdom as a place (GThom 49, 50, 82; p. 184).

12. “Although much Christian theology eventually made the exegetical mistake of more or less identifying the kingdom with the church, sources up until the fourth century often envision the kingdom as a future time and place. In many of these, moreover, basileia and regnum seem to mean above all “realm” or “kingdom.” In this respect, these later, extracanonical texts preserve, in my judgment, an original feature of the Jesus tradition” (184). [Allison looks at many texts. I added some italics above.]

13. Some kingdom texts are land texts: Matt 8:11-12 and 19:28 and pars. He observes:

If Jesus ever spoke of the kingdom of God as a place, as the Synoptics more than suggest he did, we can be sure that his Jewish hearers would have thought in terms of the land of Israel, its capital, and the temple, which together “were the sacred centre of the earth’ that “would one day attract all peoples.” Once his sayings became the property of Gentile churches, alternative, nonterritorial readings could and did come into being. That, however, tells us next to nothing about the historical Jesus (186, italics added).

14. Sometimes kingdom is the same as life or eternal life, and this shows that kingdom blended quickly into the future (territorial?) place of God’s final rule. This captures kingdom as utopia.

15. Critiques Dalman’s slide from kingdom of heaven (malkuth shamayim) into “age to come” (olam haba). Here Dalman should have seen that kingdom is connected to the future place of God’s eternal reign. He has here an extensive discussion. With this conclusion:

My judgment, then, is that basileia is, in the Synoptics, a realm as well as a reign; it is a place and a time yet to come in which God will reign supreme. The term designates, in many or perhaps most cases, the “grosse Heilszustand am Ende der Tage,” [Hans Windisch] “the future which God will bring about.” The formulation of Johannes Weiss remains valid: basileia is “the objective messianic Kingdom, which usually is pictured as a territory into which one enters, or as a land in which one has a share’ (201).

Allison here is pressing the eschatological, final kingdom more than the present realizations of that kingdom, but notice how territorial kingdom is to the futuristic language of Jesus.

16. Yes, at times kingdom means rule. He points to Luke 11:20. [In my Kingdom Conspiracy, I break down the second element — the rule of the king — into two dimensions: redemptive rule and governing rule. I see Luke 11:20 as the redemptive rule of God breaking in.]

17. Now notice this point: “With this in mind, I want to suggest that, in addition to the meanings given in the dictionaries, basileia may on occasion mean neither God’s “rule” nor “reign” but refer rather, by metonymy, to God’s people.6 One recalls Ps 102:22 … ” (202).

Here Allison observes that kingdom means people — and I would contend that people is implicit constantly in the Jewish world since God’s rule of God’s territory requires a people in order for it to be a kingdom. Allison states this explicitly: “A kingdom is empty and so nothing without its subjects, and Exod 19:6 famously declares, “You [Israel] will be to me a kingdom [MT: mmlkt; Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion: fiaoiXeia] of priests and a holy nation'” (203). He sees a royal people as crucial to a number of sayings of Jesus.

18. “When speaking of the eschatological future, scholars, observing that Jesus, if the Synoptics have it right, preferred instead to employ “the kingdom of God,” have found here verbal innovation, maybe even a deliberate theological decision” (203). We don’t, he observes, know when this rabbinic language became the official language. Hence, we don’t know if Jesus’ use is novel or not. Nor does it matter.

In Allison then we have a king, a rule, a future territorial rule by God the king, and a people. All that we need here is the law and Allison would have the same five elements I listed at the top of this post. What Allison focuses on is the future territorial rule of the king (the kingdom of God of the future) and not enough on the present dimensions of the kingdom (if kingdom is territorial, where is that territory now?) and as a result he doesn’t explore the relationship of the present kingdom and the present church.

But make no mistake: kingdom cannot be separated, as both Wilson and Allison show, from God, God’s rule, God’s rule over God’s people, and God’s rule in God’s place.

[1] Wilson, 118.

We Haven’t Heard from Chesterton For Too Long

Last updated on: August 28, 2015 at 6:58 am By Scot McKnight

By Allan Bevere

Jesus Is Not a Poster Boy for Your Progressive or Conservative Cause– G.K. Chesterton’s “Mere Christianity”

C.S. Lewis was thrust into fame with his work that led to the publication of his book, Mere Christianity. Indeed, when many Christians hear the words “mere Christianity,” Lewis is the first person who comes to mind. But G.K Chesterton published his own version of mere Christianity years before Lewis began putting his thoughts in print and on the radio. The Everlasting Man, published in 1925, is considered by many Chesterton scholars to be his finest work. While an atheist, Lewis read it, and he credited the book as a formative influence on his journey into Christianity. In reflecting later upon Everlasting Man, Lewis said that serious atheists should be careful about what they read.(1) Lewis writes,

Then I read Chesterton’s Everlasting Man and for the first time saw the whole Christian outline of history set out in a form that seemed to me to make sense . . . I already thought Chesterton the most sensible man alive “apart from his Christianity.” Now, I veritably believe, I thought that Christianity itself was very sensible “apart from its Christianity.”(2)

The Everlasting Man, Chesterton argues for the indispensable nature of mere Christianity, which for Chesterton, and later Lewis, consisted of the basic doctrines of the faith believed by most Christians throughout history. Such “mereness” centered around the person and work of Jesus Christ who is indeed the everlasting man.

Chesterton was unimpressed with conservative (not the same as Orthodox) and liberal (progressive) versions of Christianity and politics. He found both expressions of faith and life to be dull and uninteresting and too close to the culture to be set apart in any significant way. Chesterton famously quipped, “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”(3) For G.K. the historic faith and its mere expression was what made Christianity unique and singularly significant, and in The Everlasting Man, he invites the reader to see the truth of that by stepping back and seeing the larger picture of life. Conservatives and progressives are unable to see that larger picture because they are too wrapped up in the minutiae of their context. They have little ability at critical self-examination. Chesterton also understood that one’s assumptions, and not the current or past moments, were critical in the search for truth. He said, “What a man can believe depends upon his philosophy, not upon the clock or the century.”(4)

One place where Chesterton demonstrates his independent thinking is in reference to evolutionary theory. Chesterton does not deny the truth of evolution. What he does in insightful fashion is to connect it to some of the great theological themes in Scripture. In so doing he does not pit science against the Bible, but attempts to make sense of both in holistic fashion. Ahlquist writes,

What do we know about early man? The one thing we really we know for sure is that he was an artist. The cave man left behind his drawings on the wall of the cave. The creature who made these drawings was truly different from all other creatures because he was a creator as well as a creature. “Art is the signature of man,” says Chesterton. It is just one of many things that demonstrates that “the more we look at man as an animal, the less he will look like one.” In addition to art are such artificial things as clothes and furniture and such unique reactions such as shame and laughter. And that other exclusively human thing called religion

Religion is as old as Civilization. And civilization is as old as history. Chesterton says that when we study history, the curtain rises on a play already in progress. He argues that it was religion that advanced civilization. It was religion that dealt with the meanings of things, with the development and interpretation of symbols, which advanced communication and knowledge, or what we call the arts and the sciences.(5)

After rightly rejecting the history of religions approach to religion, Chesterton then makes his case, in the second half of the book, for the singular significance of Jesus. The Cross is a central demonstration of such significance. He writes,

All the great groups that stood about the Cross represent in one way or another the great historical truth of the time; that the world could not save itself. Man could do no more. Rome and Jerusalem and Athens and everything else…(6)

Chesterton rejects, out of hand, the modern belief that Jesus was simply a wonderful teacher. For Chesterton, this was a simplistic reading of the Gospels. The Jesus that comes to us from the pages of Scripture is too complex, and that Jesus is a multi-faceted figure who shakes up the status quo and rearranges everyone’s view of the world. G.K. does not lay this criticism at the feet of secularism alone. He notes how the church has tended to emphasize the softer side of Jesus, the Jesus of comfort, while minimizing the Jesus with the hard edge.(7) It is this complex, multi-faceted Jesus that will not allow him to be used as a poster boy for various modern political and religious agendas, though many continue the attempt. (If you don’t believe this, just look at all the supposedly profound pictures of Jesus posted on Facebook which try to connect him either to the Occupy Movement or the Tea Party, or as supporting a liberal or conservative political agenda.) Such attempts to conform Jesus’ life and ministry are attempts to domesticate him because Jesus’ call to discipleship as Jesus himself presents it, is too difficult for most. So, the only option is to acculturate the gospel to the current political options presenting them as somehow radical, when in reality they are palatable alternatives to the truly revolutionary nature of what God calls us to in Jesus Christ. The problem, says Chesterton is not that Christianity “has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”(8) For G.K. all of human history is to be seen through the lens of Incarnation.

While Chesterton is modern in that he assumes that objectivity is possible, he is postmodern in his appeal to the significance of art and beauty and poetry as expressions of the divine source of life. In the latter he was ahead of his time in apologetical reflections. He writes,

You say grace before meals. All right. But I say grace before the concert and the opera, and grace before the play and pantomime, and grace before I open a book, and grace before sketching, painting, swimming, fencing, boxing, walking, playing, dancing and grace before I dip the pen in the ink.(9)

So, the next time someone speaks of “mere Christianity” while we are right to think of C.S. Lewis, let us not forget the man who made Lewis’ work possible– G.K. Chesterton.

And while you’re reflecting on all of this, don’t forget to take that poster of Jesus off your political wall. Notes

(1) Dale Ahlquist, “The Everlasting Man.”

(2) C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, 1955

(3) Illustrated London News (1924-04-19)

(4) G.K. Chesteron, Orthodoxy, 1908.

(5) Ahlquist, “The Everlasting Man.”

(6) G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man.

(7) C. Burrell, “Chesterton: The Everlasting Man.”

(8) Chesterton, The Everlasting Man.

(9) From one of Chesterton’s notebooks, (mid 1890s). See Amanda, DeWitt, “Grace.”

The Value of Evolution (RJS)

Last updated on: August 27, 2015 at 8:49 am By RJS

The fourth section of Gary N. Fugle’s book Laying Down Arms to Heal the Creation-Evolution Divide looks at the value of biological evolution. It is hard for the non-scientist, and even many scientists who are not conversant with biology, to appreciate the depth and importance of the evolutionary theory in biology.

[O]nce the idea of evolutionary change is considered, we find that it has enormous power to explain much of what we see in the biological realm. This explanatory power pervades all levels of biology, extending from the origin of cell organelles to complex interactions within ecosystems. With evolution in mind, phenomena in one area of biology after another become understandable like they never were before. Biologists are able to repeatedly exclaim, “Aha! I get it! Now that makes sense.” It is because of this sweeping power to make sense of the natural world that evolution is regarded as one of the few unifying principles in the biology discipline. (p. 129)

Now some biologists will claim that this level of explanation removes God from the picture. Fugle’s response, along with that of other Christian scientists, is a sense of awe in understanding God’s methods of creation.

If you wonder why scientists find the evidence persuasive, read this section of Fugle’s book. He runs through a discussion of body plans and embryology; moves to fossils, with sequential ordering and transitional forms; considers biogeography and the dispersion of forms and species; and concludes with evidence embedded in the genetic coding of DNA. This gives a flavor of the range of evidence for evolution available. It is important to realize however, that the evidence for evolution is so pervasive that no short book can do justice to the sum total. Fugle includes a range of examples, but it would be a mistake to think that this is more than just the tip of the iceberg.

An outline of a few of the examples:

Whales provide a particularly significant example illustrating a number of the lines of evidence for evolution. Mainstream science leads to the conclusion that whales evolved from land mammals over the last 65 million years or so. Almost every line of evidence for evolution is illustrated by the whale.

The whale fin has the same external hydrodynamic structure as fish but the bone structure found in vertebrates, especially mammals with a humerus, ulna, radius, carpals. Whales also have vestigial pelvic bones.

The embryos of many whales develop hind limb buds that are reabsorbed, as well as external ear lobes, also reabsorbed. “Baleen whale embryos start with nostrils toward the tip of the snout, but, as development progresses, changes in the shape and size of skull bones cause the nostrils to migrate to their final place at the top of the head to form the blowhole.” (p. 144)

The fossil record shows a progression of whales with disappearing rear legs and nostrils at various locations along the snout. Transitional forms abound. The ankle bones of ancient whale precursors have a structure similar to that of even-toed hoofed animals.

The genome project confirms these connections. Whale and dolphin DNA is most similar to the hippopotamus, then cow, sheep, deer and giraffes. All consistent with evolution from an even-toed hoofed precursor. All of these connections could simply be “the way God chose to do it,”creating a succession of unrelated species, but this does not seem as satisfactory as the explanatory power of evolution … as the mechanism God chose to use in creation.

Vestigial structures provide a powerful line of evidence for evolution. The pelvic bones of whales are one example. Moles born blind for life … “also have the basic form of an eye, including a bony eye socket, eyelids, a structural “eyeball,” and even a lens, but a functioning retina for sight is not formed.” (p. 140) “Flightless beetles grow perfectly formed wings that remain permanently locked away under their fused wing covers.” (p. 141) These structures make sense in the context of evolutionary theory, but little sense if we assume spontaneous creation.

Continental drift. Fossils of marsupials, large reptiles, and seed bearing trees are found on Antarctica – in an inhospitable environment today, but similar to those found in Africa and South America. “This is really a rather remarkable confirmation of continental drift and evolutionary theory since no marsupials, reptiles, or trees could possibly have lived on Antarctica if it was always located where it is today.” (p. 189)

Vestigial genes, duplicate genes and pseudogenes. Production of vitamin C, also know as ascorbic acid, gives an example of a vestigial gene.

The majority of mammals have a useful protein-coding gene for an enzyme (L-gulonolactone oxidase or “GULO”) that allows them to synthesize their own ascorbic acid molecules. However, almost all primates (i.e., tasiers, all monkeys, the great apes, and humans) lack the ability to make ascorbic acid. … It may seem logical to assume that since most primates don’t manufacture ascorbic acid they simply lack the gene for making it. This is not the case! Instead, the DNA of the deficient primates contains a nonfunctional mutant copy of the GULO gene. This dysfunctional DNA sequence is clearly recognizable as the gene for ascorbic acid synthesis, due to the overall matching pattern of DNA bases, but there are noticeable errors in the sequence that interfere with normal production of the GULO enzyme. (p. 199)

Sure, God could have simply created primates with the dysfunctional DNA, but why should we prefer this explanation?

Many genes are duplicated in the genome. These can be modified leading to beneficial new capacities or disabled without affecting the viability of an animal. Evolutionary theory predicts that beneficial mutations will be selected, but inactivated genes will also be carried along for the ride. They experience little selective pressure, either negative or positive. “With the pseudogenes as a nonfunctional passenger, there are no constraints on additional mutations in nucleotide bases and these should accumulate steadily through ancestral lineages without consequence to individual organisms.” (p. 200) One such example is a missing 11 base pair sequence in a version of the SHMT pseudogene in gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas and humans. “The SHMT pseudogene in other primate species is not missing this distinctive set of eleven bases.” (p. 202) The conclusion is that this eleven base pair segment was lost in a common ancestor to these “great apes” after divergence from the other primates. This supports a tree of connection derived from a wide variety of data.

Ring Species. Consider Ensatina eschascholtzii salamanders in Oregon and California. Populations in Oregon interbreed freely, and as the populations move down the Sierra Nevada and the coastal mountains they interbreed freely with neighboring populations. When they overlap again in Southern California the populations cannot interbreed. They are biologically distinct entities. This isn’t “macroevolution” (a category distinction that isn’t really recognized in biology) but it is an illustration of the development of new species through the accumulation of evolutionary change.

For that matter Chihuahuas and Great Danes would likely be considered separate species if we only had these two varieties of dogs. It is the varieties between that connect the two in one family.

And this leads us to …

Macro and micro evolution. There really is no significant distinction between macro and micro evolution, except the amount of time involved. This doesn’t mean we have all the answers In fact, according to Fugle “It has never been certain that we understood all the natural mechanisms needed to explain the grand story of life.” (p. 219)

This is still true, but much progress has been made in the last several decades.

Duplicate genes provide a mechanism for evolution that has only recently been recognized. “In the past, we typically viewed mutations primarily as disruptions in currently functioning systems. But a mutation in a duplicated gene can occur without harming an organism because the original gene still functions and gives rise to the normal protein product.” (p. 219) A duplicate gene can be modified stepwise to give rise to a related, but distinct protein product providing a new functional capacity to an organism. Many active enzymes are similar, but fulfill different functions.

We are also learning that “a relatively small number of genes direct crucial embryonic events.” (p. 220) Changes in these genes can have interesting consequences. Hoxc8 is a gene that produces a product that prevents formation of limbs in snakes. This gene is present in lizards, but the product is not expressed. In another example, Giraffe necks are the result of an extended developmental period for the requisite process, not a distinctively new process.

The take-home message is that genetic-changes that alter the regulation of developmental steps are the likely source of many major evolutionary changes. This means that organism differences may not be so much the presence or absence of particular genes but rather the regulation of where, when, and how existing developmental genes are expressed. It is highly significant that these processes contrast with the typically perceived evolutionary progression of small, accumulated steps. (p. 221)

Major transfers of DNA between organisms likely played a major role in primitive forms of the Precambrian and Cambrian periods as well. We see remnants of these events in the DNA of modern plants and animals.

All of these mechanisms add to our understanding of evolutionary biology and counter some of the skepticism that mutation could lead to new organisms. There may also be other mechanisms not yet fully understood. But the patterns are clear. Biology isn’t a finely tuned machine, but a mesh of potentially interchangeable or malleable components constrained by basic chemistry and physics.

I’ve summarized only a small part of the evidence Gary Fugle outlines in this section (at 94 pages, the longest section of the book) and he’s provided only an overview of the vast amount of evidence for evolutionary biology. There are genuine reasons why scientists believe that the earth is very old and life is interconnected via evolutionary mechanism. Evolution is not a theory in trouble. The value of evolutionary theory is not the elimination of God (despite the claims of a few scientists and the fears of more Christians) but the coherent story that emerges from the evidence of the natural world. It is truly awe inspiring.

Evolutionary theory is the framework through which everything makes sense.

If evolution isn’t true we are left with an enormous number of facts and observations, but no story that puts them together.

What evidence do you find convincing?

If you don’t find the evidence convincing, what would it take to convince you of the strength of evolutionary theory?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Where Do You Start? (RJS)

Last updated on: August 25, 2015 at 10:20 am By RJS

The issues surrounding science and Christian faith are huge. They seem complex and technical. It is tempting to search for short simple solutions and move on … or to ignore the issues all together. What do Christians with training and a background in science think about these issues? Where is the Christian leader, teacher or pastor able to turn to get started?

Wouldn’t it be useful to listen to Christian scientists discuss these issues?

The American Scientific Affiliation is a a network of Christians in the sciences that has been existence for some 70 years. Over this time the organization has fostered many discussions on science and Christian faith. These conversations have occurred at the annual meeting and in the pages of the ASA journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF). Much of this material has been available on the web for many years, but access was often confusing and finding the desired material could be something of a hit and miss proposition requiring a bit of luck. I have found some very useful material in these archives (lectures by Francis Collins and Jack Collins for example, or an article by Richard Bube or Dennis Venema). But even returning to a previous find could be something of a challenge.

As part of the Evolution and Christian Faith program run by BioLogos and funded by the Templeton Foundation the ASA has organized and categorized a wide range of resources addressing questions of evolution and the age of the earth. These resources can be found through the link Resources on Science and Christian Faith. From the introductory page:

WELCOME to Resources on Science and Christian Faith from the American Scientific Affiliation. We have prepared mini-courses on a variety of faith and science topics using resources from our journal, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (formally Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation) and from presentations from our annual meetings. Click on one of the categories below to find readings, audio recordings, and videos that have been selected from our collection to introduce you to a particular topic. We encourage you to proceed through the collection in the order presented and write answers to the study questions in a personal journal. These study questions can also be used in a conversation with another person or in a discussion in a small group.

This is followed by a range of topics: Getting Started, Reading Genesis, Adam and Eve, Age of the Earth, Bioethics, … and so on.

This isn’t a monotone presentation covering only one view. There are unifying themes rooted in Christian commitments

The ASA accepts the Bible as inspired, trustworthy, and authoritative and thus disagrees with the “atheistic naturalist” who simply disregards the Biblical teaching. The ASA also believes that scientific investigation (and its results) are legitimate because God created and preserves the universe in such a way that it has contingent order and intelligibility. In other words the ASA discussion is among people who take both the Bible and science seriously.

But also strong disagreements.

The ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue. We are committed to providing an open forum where controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science are freely expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian love and concern for truth. Consequently, you will find a range of views, some which disagree strongly with the other.

The resources available contain presentations and articles by William Dembski arguing for Intelligent Design and Hugh Ross arguing for a progressive creation approach, as well as presentations by Francis Collins and others arguing for evolutionary creation. Although there are a variety of Old Earth positions, there is relatively little from a young earth perspective … simply because there are not many scientists or scientific arguments that support this perspective (a fact that should cause many Christian leaders to dig a little deeper). From the page collecting resources on the Age of the Earth:

Most ASA members accept the consensus scientific view on the age of the earth. Already in 1949 based on radiometric dating techniques, ASA member Laurence Kulp said, “One of the most probable facts in geology, I believe, is that the earth is close to two billion years old…” Kulp’s early paper supporting the old earth position and criticizing YEC is featured in the collection below. A paper written for the ASA web site, “Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective” by physicist Roger Wiens has proved to be one of the most popular in terms of electronic downloads. Many of the resources here simply review the scientific claims for an old earth and then seek to understand that great age in light of what the Bible says. YEC have brought forward critiques of the various dating methods and conclusions drawn from them. Because ASA members have tended to accept the consensus view, the articles here summarize and engage the YEC criticisms. ASA members may disagree with the YEC position but acknowledge those who hold that view as fellow believers and worthy of respectful engagement. Randy Isaac’s review of the YEC RATE project and subsequent dialog with its authors illustrates this respectful engagement.

The YEC perspective isn’t absent however … but it is dealt with in a way that respects the scientific data and looks to fit it into this biblical interpretation.

The last group of papers deals with the idea of apparent age. Here, the earth/universe looks old, i.e. old age is the conclusion you would draw from the scientific data. Even Isaac, in his discussion of the RATE project, seems to allow this view as one with scientific integrity because it admits to the consensus view. Many reject the view because it undermines the idea that we can draw reliable conclusions from our observations or even trust God’s revelation to us in creation. Nonetheless, apparent age is a method of reconciling the scientific data with the perceived need for a young earth.

Anyone interested in tackling the scientific arguments for the vast age of the earth or the related theological questions is encouraged to study these papers and talks.

Hopefully this collection, now organized and accessible, will provide a valuable resource.

Who do you trust in the conversation of science and Christian faith?

Why? What makes a person trustworthy?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

In Which She Undefines “Femininity”

Last updated on: August 20, 2015 at 5:27 pm By Scot McKnight

From Arise.

By Rachel Heston-Davis: Rachel Heston-Davis is a writer, English professor, and former freelance journalist. She lives in Southern Illinois with her husband Jaron, where she teaches at her alma mater, Greenville College. A lover of good rhetoric, Rachel blogs about faith, feminism, culture, and sometimes the internet itself at rachelhestondavis.com.

Not long after I began studying egalitarian theology in a serious way, I was confronted by one of the more perplexing questions associated with it: what are the true “differences” between men and women?

The complementarian theology I was fast rejecting hinged on a tidy framework for defining gender. Maleness meant characteristics and actions that encompass leadership roles, while femaleness meant characteristics and actions that encompass supportive, submissive roles. I knew that answer felt stilted and restrictive, but deconstructing it only left me with more questions. If everyone is equal and roles interchangeable, I thought, then what is“male” and what is “female?”

Not everyone in the egalitarian camp answers this question the same way. I’ve met Christian egalitarians who believe that any gender differences are the result of social conditioning, and our biology is the only thing that separates men and women. Other Christian egalitarians hold that God made men and women with a few inherent differences within the brain.

I was of two minds. It felt dicey to admit that God might have imbued differences between the sexes, because complementarians might use that to argue for separate roles, but I also saw a story in Scripture of God creating man and woman and saying that the two of them, distinct but together, were a beautiful picture. Why, I thought, would God make biological categories for humans that meant nothing at the emotional or spiritual level?

Spurred by these questions, I set to work reading egalitarian scholarship and plaguing family and friends with requests for their thoughts on the matter. No matter what I read or who I asked, I couldn’t find a direct answer. I read convincing arguments on why women shouldn’t be barred from certain things–jobs, the pulpit, leadership, and influence. Egalitarians could argue againstlimiting the definition of womanhood, but I wasn’t sure how to build an active definition of femaleness as compared to maleness.

And, to my amazement, a closer look at complementarianism revealed an equally muddy definition of female personhood. Though its supporters claimed to offer a secure identity for men and women, it was a fragile identity, dependent on human behavior. Women could violate God’s intent for their identity simply by failing to back down in disagreements with their husbands. Men could violate it by staying home full-time to care for their children.

Often, men and women who felt ill-suited for these gender roles were offered an “out” that was behavior-based. Strong-willed women were permitted to enjoy leadership in managing their homes, running ladies’ Bible studies, or excelling in careers, as long as they paid the piper by staying home until the last kid was in school, and talking up their husband’s place as the final decision maker. Laid-back men didn’t have to feel like leaders as long as they brought home a paycheck and asked after their family’s spiritual health. It seemed that what gender really boiled down to, even for complementarians, was what people did and not who they were. In fact, many of the passages used to back up such traditionalist views–Titus 2:3-5, Ephesians 5:22-24, I Peter 3:1-6, I Corinthians 14: 34-35, and others–describe behavior more than they define personhood.

I was at a loss as to how to define myself as a woman. It was Patricia Gundry’s foundational egalitarian book, Woman Be Free that made the first crack in my confusion. Published in 1977, it attempted to give a basic overview of the Christian egalitarian position. Chapter three addressed common threats that are made against women to keep them from pushing back against a patriarchal system. Gundry explained that one such threat is the idea that women who step outside their role of submission might lose their femininity, the thing that makes men celebrate them as female.

Gundry, on the other hand, defined femininity as “an elusive quality women have that appeals to men….You can make every effort to pin it down, but it will escape you… A woman cannot lose her femininity, because it is not a thing. Femininity is the very essence of a woman. And she cannot lose what she is” (31).

This was a new thought to chew on. Could femininity, and therefore masculinity, be mysterious qualities we possess simply by virtue of being? Could they exist without a concrete list of bullet points hammering them out?

I went to my mother with these questions. I supposed if anyone should be able to help me figure out my femininity, it was the woman who gave me most of my female genetics in the first place. Mom did not specifically identify as “egalitarian,” because she didn’t care about labels, but she and my dad had always lived what appeared to be an egalitarian marital ethic, so I figured she was a safe subject to question on the nature of our place in the world.

“Mom,” I asked bluntly, “what is the difference between women and men? What thing or things always make us different from each other?”

My mom laughed out loud. “Honey,” she said, “you are never going to find an answer to that question that is always true for every woman and every man.”

So, scholarly research and practical parental advice brought me to the same place. I turned this answer over in my mind for several weeks–then several years. I eased into that definition of femininity in my mind and discovered a freedom that’s difficult to explain. It meant that no matter what I did or didn’t do, no matter what mistakes I made or what triumphs, no matter what happened to me beyond my control, a huge chunk of my identity could never change. It would always be part of me. I couldn’t say the same about other identity markers in my life, such as my career, my relationships, or my socio-economic standing.

It felt too ambiguous at first, this inability to classify what “being a woman” or “being a man” looked like. In time, however, it became beautiful. I began to appreciate the full range of personality expression demonstrated by the women around me, and the same for men. In addition, it freed me up to pursue questions about who I am as a Christ-follower. Rather than pore over Ephesians 5:22-24 for the formula for being female, I now read the entire book of Ephesians to see who I am in relation to Christ and to the rest of the church. Instead of worrying about the supposed Titus 2 checklist, I’m reading Galatians 3 for insight into my standing before God.

In summary, then, you can believe there is meaning in having two genders without having to pin down just how that plays out. You don’t have to “protect” the meaning of gender by quantifying it, as though it were made of glass. Like so many things, it’s a mystery–one that God does not require or expect us to solve. He just wants each person, male or female, to listen for his call in their unique life.

Give and Take (Phillip Camp)

Last updated on: August 24, 2015 at 8:47 am By Scot McKnight

Many in our churches are afraid of the Old Testament. In Phillip Camp’s fine, and readable, and church-friendly book on Deuteronomy, Living as the Community of God: Moses Speaks to the Church in Deuteronomy, an expert OT scholar speaks to the church about the value of this book for ordinary church life.

Moses Speaks to the Church in Deuteronomy: Give and Take

Phillip Camp

Deuteronomy presents a tension with respect to the land that Israel is promised: the land is both a gift from God and something that Israel must take for themselves.

“See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.” (1:8, NIV)

“See, the Lord your God has given you the land. Go up and take possession of it as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, told you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.” (1:21, NIV)

“And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.” (1:39, NIV)

Receiving the gift of God is a call to participate with God. God gives the land to Israel. Israel in no way merits God’s choosing them or giving them the land (Deut 7:7-8; 9:4-6). Still, Israel must respond to God’s gift of the land by trusting him when he tells them to take it. Why? Couldn’t God just send some plagues or a destroyer? It wouldn’t be the first time. Yet, it seems that God has invited Israel into real participation in his divine purposes, into real divine-human cooperation. God will fight with and for Israel, because Israel cannot succeed apart from God. But Israel must fight (Deut 7:17-24; cf. 1:41-46).

Faith is built not merely by experiencing the blessing of God but also, even chiefly, in walking with God. For Israel, acquiring the Promised Land comes through trust in and obedience to God, despite glaring obstacles in their path. Responding to the gift in these ways makes it no less a gift than does taking the paper off a present on Christmas morning.

As God’s people today, God gives us his care and provision, blessing, and hope through Christ. In Christ, God has given us a role in his redemptive purposes for creation. The question is whether we will respond to the gift in faith and move forward with God in fulfilling his purposes.

The problem too often for God’s people is that fear deflates and defeats faith. Early in Deuteronomy, we are given this strange statement that it takes 11 days to go from Horeb to Kadesh-Barnea (1:2). We soon discover, however, that what should have been a brief trip into the Promised Land becomes a 40 year ordeal (1:3) because the previous generation of Israelites refused to trust God. Deuteronomy 1:19-46 recounts the rebellion in the wilderness after Israel heard the spies’ report and lost heart. Moses exhorted Israel, “Do not be terrified, do not be afraid of them,” as he reminded them how God led them, fought for them, and carried them (v. 29-31). Still they adamantly refused to go in. So God essentially says, “If you don’t want to go in, you won’t. Turn around. After you are gone, your children will possess the land.” Those children now stand at the border of the Promised Land faced with the same question. Will they take the gift of God, or will they allow fear to defeat them?

Six times in Deuteronomy the command “do not fear” (in some form) appears (1:21; 3:2; 20:1, 3; 31:6, 8). The command occurs about 90 times in the Bible as a whole. Apparently, God’s people need reminding again and again not to fear. Fear undermines faith, but God has demonstrated to Israel again and again that what they fear is no match for God’s power.

Like Israel, we can allow fear to cause us to turn our backs on the gift and call of God. Fear of deprivation can lead us to trust in wealth and self-sufficiency, rather than trust God for what we will eat, drink, and wear. Fear of persecution can cause us to remain silent and hidden, rather than faithfully bearing witness. Fear of the cost or imposition that following Christ will make on our lives can lead us to rebel against God’s purposes, never experiencing the joy of rest in Jesus. But the call to us, as to Israel, is “Do not be afraid! Trust God enough to embrace his promises fully, wherever they may lead.”

Finally, no one fully enjoys the gift until everyone does. After taking land that God gives Israel in the Transjordan (the kingdoms of Sihon and Og) two and a half Israelite tribes receive that territory as their inheritance (2:24-3:19). In 3:20, the men of these tribes are told that they must help the remaining tribes take their land west of the Jordan River. Only when all of the people have obtained “rest” in the land, when all of the people have their allotments and are enjoying security and prosperity in the land, do any of the individual tribes have the right to enjoy it. The gift of the land is a gift to the whole community of God, and taking the land is the obligation of the whole community. Israel’s covenant with God is a community covenant and, thus, it entails responsibilities towards others in the community. That is, no one was permitted to simply think in terms of “me, myself, and I.”

We members of the new covenant community, recipients of the gifts of God in Jesus Christ, find ourselves in a similar place. Like the Transjordan tribes, we must strive on behalf of our brothers and sisters who do not enjoy the provision and security (rest) that we have. The Jordan River was not a true boundary to the relationship and obligation between the Israelite tribes. Similarly, national, economic, and social boundaries do not stand between us and our sisters and brothers in Christ. We are called to put our full enjoyment of blessings on hold until we help our fellow Christians everywhere enjoy the gifts of God. Thus, we bear witness to and live into the eschatological rest God intends for his people.

An Adam Seminar (RJS)

Last updated on: August 19, 2015 at 11:57 pm By RJS

As I wrap up a rather exhausting (and exhilarating) period of travel I would like to take the opportunity today to highlight yet another set of conversations on the question of Adam, perhaps the key issue at the intersection of science with Christian faith for many. Books and Culture just recently concluded a series of posts – a Symposium on the Historical Adam. The series consists of initial positions and responses on the question of Adam with contributions covering a range of views. Contributors include in alphabetical order: Peter Enns, Karl Giberson, Denis O. Lamoureux, Hans Madueme, Harry “Hal” Lee Poe, John Schneider, William VanDoodewaard, and John H. Walton. Links to all of the articles in the series can be found in John Wilson’s brief wrap-up article Adam’s Ancestors and with each of the separate contributions as well.

We’ve covered works by many of these authors in the past, in particular Peter Enns (The Evolution of Adam), Denis Lamoureux (Evolutionary Creation), John Walton (The Lost World of Adam and Eve) and Harry Lee Poe (God and the Cosmos with Jimmy H. Davis) among others. You can find links to the posts on these books under the Science & Faith link at the top of the blog. All of them have thought quite deeply and carefully about the issues involved, although they emphasize different points.

Hans Madueme and William VanDoodewaard argue for a “traditional” understanding of Adam. VanDoodewaard just published a book The Quest for the Historical Adam laying out his position in more detail – I haven’t read it yet, but will see about getting a copy. Madueme edited a book defending the need for a historical Adam Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin, although not all contributors take this to require a young earth perspective.

Peter Enns, Denis Lamoureax, Karl Giberson and John Schneider do not take the “traditional” view.

We’ve just finished a long series on John Walton’s book – although he sees Genesis as teaching a historical Adam, he doesn’t see Genesis as teaching a straightforward Adam and Eve as unique progenitors of all humans.

Harry Lee Poe takes yet a different tack – and doesn’t give a clear position that I could discern. But he makes a number of good points, especially in his second round response.

If the Bible is only “received wisdom from the past,” then it has no more relevance for our time than Homer’s Iliad. On the other hand, if the Bible is revelation from God, as I believe, then we should be very careful to distinguish between the Bible and our theology. Theology is usually wrong to some degree. Some theology is more wrong than other theology, because it is always only human reflection and rationalization about our faith. It is not revelation from God. Just as scientific theories may sound good for a few centuries and then collapse, theology is a frail flower.

He suggests (if I read him right) that much of the controversy surrounding Adam derives from interpretation, tradition, and theology rather than from scripture. This can be seen in the way that the conversation is so often framed. If Adam is not historical this or that aspect of our theology is undermined. This is the wrong approach – we need to put the Bible, not our flavor of theology or favorite interpretation, front and center. As many an Old Testament scholar will acknowledge, the “traditional” view is not the only reading of the text, and perhaps not even a particularly careful reading of the text. In fact Poe argues that “the greatest challenge to a young-earth view is the biblical text.” We have to know what the text is and what truth it is trying to convey in order to interpret it properly. “The Enlightenment standard of truth as empirical knowledge and brute fact is alien to the variety of forms revelation takes in the Bible (Heb. 1:1).”

I would put it like this. We need to be grounded in the sweep of scripture from Genesis to Revelation, especially in the Prophets and the Gospels. If we are grounded in the sweep of scripture then the Adam question can be put into perspective. It becomes clear that our theologies and systems are human reflections and as such imperfect pictures of God and His truth. It seems impossible to get all the data into one nice neat wrapped package. We need a degree of humility as we wrestle with our faith. On top of that Adam simply doesn’t come up that much at all … essentially absent from the picture from Genesis 3 to Romans 5 (except for a few genealogies). He vanishes from the picture again after 1 Corinthians 15. In Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 Paul’s focus isn’t on Adam. Paul’s focus is on Christ. We can be wrong about Adam and nothing really changes if we are focused on Christ and on the sweep of scripture.

The topic of Adam is worth careful consideration and much conversation. We will learn a great deal in the process. But I am convinced that nothing of true significance hangs in the balance.

John Wilson’s brief wrap-up article highlights a book, Adam’s Ancestors by David Livingstone, that I’ve posted on and found useful. (The three most recent here: Adam’s Ancestors, Pre-Adamite Populations?, Pre-Adamism and Hermeneutic.) The history of Christian thought and the rabbit trails that have been followed at times should lead us in a direction of caution and humility.

And … the female serpent so common in medieval and Renaissance art should caution us against assuming that there is and always has been one simple unified interpretation of Genesis. Few of us today would read this into the “traditional” view of the snake in Genesis 3, yet it was quite common in the past (Notre Dame Cathedral above, Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel here).

To what extent should our theology guide our view of Adam?

How important is the question of Adam and why?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Who was the Roman centurion first baptized into the Christian faith?