\n<\/p>\n
Give me a moment to step up onto my soapbox.<\/p>\n
As I never grow tired of pointing out, evolution poses serious theological challenges to Christianity of virtually any flavor, and certainly of Christian traditions where the inerrancy of Scripture<\/a> is a core\u00a0conviction.<\/p>\n In those cases, evolution can\u2019t simply be merged with inerrantist\u00a0theology by making\u00a0some slight adjustments to either and leaving both more or less intact.<\/p>\n As is, evangelical theology<\/a> cannot simply absorb evolution and go on as if nothing has happened. A true merger (if that\u2019s even the right way of putting it) between evangelical theology and evolution requires the former to make more serious changes\u2013to recalibrate its orthodoxy meter, so to speak.<\/p>\n Think of the mainstream\u00a0evangelical orthodoxy scale as 1 to 10 (from very conservative to uncomfortably pushing the boundaries). Rather than seeing that scale as\u00a0immovable, I think that scale needs to shift for any meaningful, lasting, and compelling progress\u00a0to be made in the evolution discussion.<\/p>\n I think the 1 \u2013 10 needs to move to something like 3 \u2013 12 or 4 \u2013 13.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t hold me to those numbers. I\u2019m just trying to make a general point: leave behind the more conservative evangelical commitments and introduce to the scale some positions that normally are not found along the evangelical spectrum.<\/p>\n I see 3 areas of evangelical theology, all pertaining to the Bible, that reflect this recalibration.<\/p>\n For those who can\u2019t or don\u2019t want to\u00a0leave inerrancy behind, at least leave behind prescriptive inerrancy.<\/p>\n That is my term and it describes the kind of inerrancy that says, \u201cBecause the Bible is inerrant, your interpretive conclusions may not go here, here, here, or here.\u201d<\/p>\n Inerrancy like this works as a fence to guard against \u201cwrong\u201d interpretations. By contrast, \u201cdescriptive inerrancy\u201d does not limit beforehand what the Bible can or can\u2019t \u201csay.\u201d Rather: \u201cNo matter what interpretive conclusions I wind up accepting, I believe that the Bible is as is from God and therefore it is what it is.\u201d<\/p>\n I know plenty of evangelicals who adopt a \u201cdescriptive inerrancy\u201d point of view. I don\u2019t feel personally that \u201cinerrancy\u201d is a concept that is set up for\u00a0that kind of flexibility, but others do and that\u2019s fine with me.<\/p>\n The more important\u00a0point for me is that particular views on how the Bible\u00a0should<\/em> work (prescriptive inerrancy) simply derail any meaningful conversation concerning evolution and have to be left behind in favor of\u00a0another option\u00a0available for inerrantists. [I talk about this more in the postscript to the 2nd edition of Inspiration and Incarnation<\/a>.]\n<\/p>\n Without making this necessary (and, I understand, difficult) move, the other two are dead in the water.<\/p>\n Not only do the sciences suggest this, but so does our knowledge of antiquity.<\/p>\n All ancient societies (not to mention others not affected by the western world) have origins myths\u2013stories that provide a sense of communal self vis-\u00e0-vis the divine and earthly realms.<\/p>\n It is a bizarre logic to think that the Israelites and the Israelites alone somehow avoided all this and provided a creation story that, although looking very similar the stories of other peoples of that region, was nevertheless somehow preserved as more historically (or scientifically!) accurate.<\/p>\n Put another way, evangelical theology needs to make room\u2013not reluctantly, but deliberately and unapologetically\u2013for the power of myth in the ancient telling of the biblical story.<\/p>\n To anticipate a point, no, I don\u2019t know \u201cwhere that will lead, where the slippery slope comes to a halt,\u201d etc., etc. But the fact that there may (or may not) be implications of this move does not mean the move itself is wrong and should be avoided. The mythic nature of Israel\u2019s origins stories (not only in Genesis but Job and Psalms) cannot be seriously contested by those who wish to remain in learned conversations with others.<\/p>\n This is clearly related to #2 but it needs to be broadened out a bit.<\/p>\n It is common (and correct, I think) for evangelicals to make a distinction between a complete\/literal historical accuracy of the Bible and an \u201cessential\u201d historical accuracy, which\u00a0takes into account things like common idioms of the day, the use of round numbers, etc. I\u2019m down with all that. \u201cInerrancy\u201d does not mean \u201cliteralism.\u201d<\/p>\n But, a deep impulse of evangelical theology is that the Bible always tilts toward historical accuracy of some sort. In other words, the Bible never simply presents as historical something that isn\u2019t historical in some sense.<\/p>\n This deep impulse comes to the surface in the evolution discussion when we read things like, \u201cAdam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the flood story, etc., are presented to us as history in some sense, since we read of people<\/em>, in geographic locations<\/em>, and the passage of time<\/em>\u00a0in these narratives.\u201d<\/p>\n But we all can list many fictional stories that involve characters with names, geographical locations (including real locations), and recount events in chronological sequence. That doesn\u2019t make them historical. All stories do that.<\/p>\n The question \u201cHow much history is in the Bible?\u201d is an old one\u2014certainly older than American evangelicalism\u2014and it\u2019s not going away any time soon, nor are we going to solve the issue\u00a0in a blog post.<\/p>\n But for the evangelical conversation with evolution to make progress, I think the historical impulse of evangelical theology needs to be re-examined.<\/p>\n Perhaps, at least as a mind experiment, evangelicals could\u00a0work out an evangelical theology that assumes<\/em>\u00a0what most others assume, the mythic\/non-historical nature of the creations stories. What might that theology look like? Be creative and imaginative. Go for it. The gospel won\u2019t fall apart. I promise.<\/p>\n ********<\/p>\n Anyway, I know I\u2019m asking a lot. Actually, I\u2019m not asking anything of anyone. I\u2019m just staying what I think the problem is.<\/p>\n And the\u00a0foundational problem is an old one\u2013going back to Judaism before Christianity: How do you continue\u00a0with an ancient faith when new circumstances challenge that faith? And that is truly a question that is always with us and will never go away.<\/p>\n [If you want to see more posts on evolution, click here<\/a>. You can also check out my book, The Evolution of Adam<\/a>.<\/em>]<\/p>\n(1) Drop the notion of prescriptive\u00a0inerrancy.<\/h2>\n
(2) Accept the mythic nature of the creation narratives in Genesis.<\/h2>\n
(3) Think differently about historical accuracy.<\/h2>\n
[Please be patient while\u00a0your comment is in moderation. Comments are normally posted within 6 hours but may take as long as 24.]<\/i><\/span><\/h6>\n<\/div>\n